Scott Allen McCurry v. Kathleen Allison

Summary

This document is a United States District Court for the Eastern District of California findings and recommendation addressing Scott Allen McCurry’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court recommends denying the petition, which challenged state convictions for torture, corporal injury to a cohabitant, assault, and battery, based on claims involving destruction of evidence, allegedly altered interrogation evidence, ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, and prosecutorial misconduct.

Holdings

1. The alleged destruction of trial exhibits did not establish a due process violation because McCurry did not show that the prosecution destroyed the evidence, that the evidence had apparent exculpatory value, that comparable evidence was unavailable, or that the government acted in bad faith.
2. McCurry failed to establish a Brady or other due process violation based on the allegedly altered interrogation transcript because the transcript was not suppressed, was not shown to be false, and did not prejudice him.
3. McCurry failed to show that trial counsel performed deficiently or that any alleged deficiency caused prejudice under Strickland.
4. Appellate counsel was not ineffective for filing a Wende brief because McCurry failed to identify a meritorious issue that counsel should have raised or establish prejudice.
5. McCurry failed to establish prosecutorial misconduct because there was no evidence that the prosecutor intentionally altered the transcript or knowingly elicited false testimony, and the alleged inconsistencies were explored before the jury.
6. Federal habeas relief was unavailable because McCurry did not show that the state courts' adjudication of his claims was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court law, or based on an unreasonable factual determination.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the alleged destruction of trial exhibits violated due process because the evidence was materially exculpatory or destroyed in bad faith.
2. Whether the prosecution violated due process by using an allegedly altered interrogation transcript.
3. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the transcript, investigate or call requested witnesses, question a defense witness, preserve exhibits, or object to allegedly false evidence.
4. Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for filing a Wende brief rather than raising McCurry's proposed claims.
5. Whether the prosecutor committed misconduct by introducing an allegedly altered transcript and permitting allegedly false testimony.
6. Whether the state court decisions rejecting McCurry's claims were contrary to, or unreasonable applications of, clearly established federal law under AEDPA.

Disposition

other