Venlote Bethea v. United States
2017 D.C. App. LEXIS 281
| D.C. | 2017Background
- Venlonte V. Bethea was convicted of murder and related offenses; convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
- Bethea filed multiple § 23-110 motions alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel (IAC) and newly discovered exculpatory evidence; procedural history includes an initial pre-sentencing filing, a dismissal as unripe, a stay during appeal, and a 2015 refile.
- Central IAC claim: trial counsel failed to call David Norwood, whose affidavit asserted Wendy Barksdale (the government’s eyewitness) could not have been in Norwood’s residence at the time she said she observed the shooting.
- The trial court denied the 2015 § 23-110 motion without an evidentiary hearing, concluding that even if true the asserted facts would not entitle Bethea to relief (i.e., summary denial under the Pettaway exception).
- The D.C. Court of Appeals majority reversed and remanded for a hearing, holding the presumption favoring hearings on § 23-110 motions was not rebutted; the dissent would have affirmed, finding the Norwood affidavit too vague and conclusory to require a hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying § 23-110 motion without a hearing | Bethea: Norwood’s affidavit provided specific, potentially impeaching facts that counsel was ineffective for failing to present; a hearing should be presumed | Government/Trial Ct.: Norwood’s statements are vague, conclusory, lack first‑hand factual basis (e.g., whether house locked, who had keys) and thus do not warrant a hearing | Reversed and remanded for a hearing: presumption favoring hearings not rebutted because Norwood’s affidavit alleged specific facts that could show prejudice |
| Whether the Pettaway summary-denial exception applied (i.e., claim palpably incredible, vague/conclusory, or cannot entitle movant to relief) | Bethea: affidavit was not conclusory or inherently incredible; further testimony at a hearing could supply details | Trial Ct./Dissent: affidavit fails to explain basis for certainty; long delay and lack of supplementation undermine credibility | Majority: Pettaway exception not met here; trial court improperly conflated merits with procedural adequacy and assumed testimony would mirror the affidavit; hearing required |
| Whether counsel’s failure to call Norwood could satisfy Strickland prejudice prong | Bethea: Norwood’s testimony would have impeached the government’s sole eyewitness and thus could have changed outcome | Government: Even if Norwood was absent, his limited proffer would not undermine the detailed eyewitness account sufficiently to show prejudice | Majority: Cannot resolve without a hearing; Norwood’s affidavit raises plausible prejudice that merits evidentiary development |
| Whether protracted delay and prior opportunity to supplement justified denying a hearing | Government/Trial Ct.: Bethea had opportunities (stay granted to investigate) but failed to supplement; thirteen-year-old affidavit weakens proffer | Bethea: Not determinative; affidavit still asserts concrete facts warranting a hearing | Dissent: Delay and failure to supplement reasonably supported denial; Majority: not sufficient to rebut presumption for a hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Ramsey v. United States, 569 A.2d 142 (D.C. 1990) (presumption in favor of holding evidentiary hearings on § 23-110 motions)
- Pettaway v. United States, 390 A.2d 981 (D.C. 1978) (narrow exception allowing summary denial when petitioner cannot under any circumstances establish facts warranting relief)
- White v. United States, 146 A.3d 101 (D.C. 2016) (summarizing categories for summary denial: palpably incredible, vague/conclusory, or meritless even if true)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficiency and prejudice)
- Jones v. United States, 918 A.2d 389 (D.C. 2007) (trial court may expect motions to present evidence and explanations addressing credibility impediments)
- Metts v. United States, 877 A.2d 113 (D.C. 2005) (denial of § 23-110 hearing proper where movant failed to produce a more credible proffer from prospective witnesses)
- Gibson v. United States, 388 A.2d 1214 (D.C. 1978) (no hearing required where motion’s specifications are conclusory with essentially no factual foundation)
- Bellinger v. United States, 127 A.3d 505 (D.C. 2015) (reiterating narrow scope of trial court discretion to deny § 23-110 hearings)