Lovitt v. Warden, Sussex I State Prison, 266 Va. 216

Summary

The Supreme Court of Virginia considers Robin M. Lovitt’s habeas corpus petition challenging his capital-murder and robbery convictions. The petition raises claims concerning the destruction of trial exhibits, alleged suppression of exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The opinion discusses the evidentiary hearing conducted pursuant to the court’s order and the applicable standards of review.

Holdings

1. Assuming without deciding that a habeas petitioner may assert a due process challenge to post-trial destruction of evidence and that Youngblood applies, the destruction did not violate due process because Lovitt failed to establish bad faith by a state agent.
2. Noncompliance with Code §§ 19.2-270.4 and 19.2-270.4:1 did not provide a basis for habeas or appellate relief because Code § 19.2-270.4:1(E) expressly excludes such noncompliance as a basis for relief.
3. The Commonwealth did not violate Brady by failing to disclose the medical examiner's initial opinion concerning two pairs of scissors examined at the autopsy because those scissors were not the trial exhibit or alleged murder weapon, and the medical examiner later changed or qualified her opinion.
4. The Commonwealth was required to disclose that Lucas received a benefit for cooperating in the Evans prosecution, but the nondisclosure did not violate Brady because defense counsel learned the information before trial and used it to impeach Lucas. Lucas's cooperation in cases for which he received no benefit was not impeachment evidence requiring disclosure, and the alleged inconsistent statements were not proven.
5. Lovitt failed to prove ineffective assistance during the guilt phase because counsel's investigation and strategic decisions concerning the scissors, DNA testing, Lucas, and witness instructions were objectively reasonable.
6. Lovitt failed to show prejudice from counsel's failure to investigate and present additional family and social-history mitigation evidence because the totality of the available mitigation evidence did not create a reasonable probability of a different sentence.
7. The court did not consider Lovitt's actual-innocence claim because actual innocence is outside the scope of habeas corpus review, which concerns the legality of the petitioner's detention.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the post-trial destruction of trial exhibits violated due process and entitled Lovitt to state habeas relief.
2. Whether the Commonwealth violated Brady by failing to disclose the medical examiner's initial opinion concerning scissors and information about witness Casel Lucas's prior cooperation and alleged inconsistent statements.
3. Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance during the guilt phase by failing to pursue additional testing, further investigate the alleged murder weapon and Lucas, or request a special jailhouse-informant credibility instruction.
4. Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance during the penalty phase by failing to investigate and present additional family and social-history mitigation evidence.
5. Whether Lovitt's actual-innocence claim could be considered in this state habeas proceeding.

Disposition

dismissed