956 F. Supp. 2d 109
D.D.C.2013Background
- Waters, Randolph, and a third person were indicted for crimes arising from a May 25, 2005 home invasion (shooting, stabbing, robbery, kidnapping); Waters was convicted after a 10-day jury trial and sentenced to 81 years.
- While his direct appeal was pending, Waters filed a D.C. Code § 23-110 post-conviction motion alleging ineffective trial counsel; the trial court denied the motion without a hearing.
- The D.C. Court of Appeals consolidated the direct appeal and the § 23-110 appeal, vacated some merged convictions, but otherwise affirmed the convictions and rejected Waters’s ineffective-trial-counsel claim; certiorari was denied.
- Waters filed a federal habeas petition alleging (1) DCCA’s denial of due process in failing to address certain issues and denying his request to represent himself on appeal, (2) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel (conflict/omissions), and (3) ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
- The district court held it lacked jurisdiction to review the § 23-110 trial-counsel claim and the DCCA’s internal appellate rulings, and on the merits rejected the ineffective-appellate-counsel claim under Strickland. Habeas petition denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance of trial counsel | Waters: trial counsel failed to object to uncharged robbery theory and to conspiracy instruction, so trial counsel was ineffective | Gov: § 23-110 was Waters’s proper remedy; lack of success does not show local remedy inadequate | Court: No jurisdiction—trial-counsel claims cognizable under § 23-110; Waters cannot show local remedy was inadequate |
| DCCA’s failure to address issues / denial of self-representation on appeal | Waters: DCCA deprived him of due process and right to represent himself on appeal | Gov: District court cannot review final DCCA decisions; certiorari denied | Held: Court lacks authority under Rooker-Feldman to review DCCA decisions; claim barred |
| Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel (conflict/omissions) | Waters: appellate counsel had a conflict and omitted meritorious issues from the § 23-110 appeal, including insufficiency on AWIK | Gov: Appellate performance judged under Strickland; omissions were not prejudicial given record and DCCA’s review | Held: Applied Strickland; counsel’s omissions were not shown to be prejudicial; claim denied |
| Sufficiency of evidence for AWIK conviction | Waters: appellate counsel refused to challenge AWIK sufficiency | Gov: Record contains ample evidence of intent and Pinkerton/co-conspirator liability; DCCA already reviewed sufficiency | Held: DCCA’s factual/legal assessment reasonable; no reasonable probability of different outcome if challenged |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946) (co-conspirator liability for substantive crimes committed in furtherance of a conspiracy)
- District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983) (federal courts lack authority to review final state court judicial decisions)
- Garris v. Lindsay, 794 F.2d 722 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (D.C. prisoners must show local remedy inadequate before federal collateral review)
- Williams v. Martinez / Martinez line relied on: Martinez v. Martinez? — court relied principally on Martinez precedent as interpreted in the D.C. Circuit; see Martinez, 586 F.3d 995 (2009) (limits on federal review of D.C. prisoner claims after § 23-110)