Cardilli v. State

314 A.3d 224

2024 ME 25

Mark CARDILLI, Jr.

v.STATE of Maine

Docket: Cum-23-329

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Argued: March 5, 2024

Decided: April 11, 2024

Aaron M. Frey, Attorney General, and Leanne Robbin, Asst, Atty. Gen. (orally), Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellant State of Maine

Thomas F. Hallett, Esq. (orally), Hallett Whipple Weyrens, Portland, for appellee Mark Cardilli Jr.

Panel: STANFILL, C.J., and MEAD, HORTON, CONNORS, and LAWRENCE, JJ.

HORTON, J.

[¶1] The State of Maine appeals from a judgment of the post-conviction court (Cumberland County, O'Neil, J.) granting Mark Cardilli Jr.’s petition for post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel; vacating his conviction for manslaughter (Class A), 17-A M.R.S. § 203(1)(A) (2023); and ordering a new trial. The post-conviction court decided that Cardilli’s two trial attorneys failed to present an adequate argument that Cardilli acted in self-defense as provided in 17-A M.R.S. § 108(2)(A)(1) (2023): "A person is justified in using deadly force upon another person: When the person reasonably believes it necessary and reasonably believes such other person is: About to use unlawful, deadly force against the person or a 3rd person." However, the trial court (Mills, J.), in acquitting Cardilli of intentional or knowing murder, 17-A M.R.S. § 201(1)(A) (2023), and finding him guilty of manslaughter after a bench trial, expressly found that the State had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that, if Cardilli actually believed that his use of deadly force was necessary under the circumstances, his belief was objectively unreasonable. As a matter of law, that finding would have negated a self-defense argument under section 108(2)(A)(1). Any inadequate advocacy by Cardilli’s trial counsel could not have had an adverse effect on his defense sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial. We therefore vacate the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand for entry of a judgment denying Cardilli’s petition.

I. BACKGROUND

[¶2] We begin by summarizing (A) the historical facts found by the trial court in Cardilli’s criminal trial, (B) the proceedings on the murder charge in the trial court, (C) our appellate review of the judgment of conviction of manslaughter, and (D) the post-conviction proceedings now on appeal.

A. Findings of the Trial Court in the Criminal Case

[¶3] Pertinent here, the trial court (Mills, J.) found the following facts, based largely on Cardilli’s testimony, which the court found mostly credible. See State v. Cardilli, 2021 ME 31, ¶¶ 2-9, 254 A.3d 415 (providing a detailed summary of the facts). On the night of March 15, 2019, Cardilli was called downstairs in the home where he lived with his parents and younger sister to discuss the presence of Isahak Muse—the twenty-two-year-old boyfriend of Cardilli’s seventeen-year-old sister. Muse, who had been drinking throughout the day, was not supposed to be in the home due to bail conditions imposed on Cardilli’s sister, After some discussion, Cardilli’s father agreed to let Muse stay until 1:00 a.m. Muse did not leave at that time. He pleaded to stay, but Cardilli’s parents insisted that he had to leave.

[¶4] Cardilli and his father escorted Muse to the kitchen door, which exited to a breezeway. When Cardilli’s mother yelled that Cardilli’s sister had struck her, Muse pushed his way back into the house through Cardilli and his father, who were thrown back against the refrigerator and the kitchen table.

[¶5] Cardilli went to his apartment above the home’s garage to get his gun but then decided against getting the gun. He returned and got Muse away from his father. Cardilli’s sister began hitting Cardilli and his father. Muse punched at Cardilli but missed. Cardilli returned to his apartment, got his gun, and put it in his pocket. When Cardilli returned, he told his father to get behind him.

[¶6] Cardilli pulled out the gun and aimed it at Muse. Cardilli did not call 9-1-1 because he thought Muse would leave once he saw the gun. Cardilli told Muse to leave. Muse yelled for his phone to call for a ride. Muse then moved toward Cardilli, punching Cardilli as Cardilli backed away into his sister’s room, where Cardilli’s father pushed Muse onto the sister’s bed. Cardilli and Muse moved to the hall. Muse punched Cardilli in the face four or five times.

[¶7] Cardilli knew that Muse had no gun. He did not see Muse with a knife. Muse did not try to grab Cardilli’s gun. Regardless, Cardilli was concerned that if he dropped the gun, Muse would use it against Cardilli and his family. Cardilli fired three shots when Muse was punching at him, and Muse died of internal and external bleeding after two bullets entered the back of his torso after he twisted away following the first shot.

B. Original Trial Court Proceedings

[¶8] On April 5, 2019, the grand jury issued an indictment charging Cardilli with intentional or knowing murder. The court held a jury-waived trial in December 2019. At that trial, many witnesses testified, including Cardilli himself. Cardilli testified that he knew Muse did not have a gun or knife but that he did believe Muse was about to use deadly force. He testified, "The reason why I shot was I feared, not knowing how many more punches I could take, and if I dropped the gun, lost the gun, Mr. Muse would take it and turn it on me and my family."

[¶9] Cardilli, through his attorneys, raised self-defense as an issue both in his oral closing argument at the end of the trial and in his post-trial memorandum, filed in court on the day of the closing arguments.

[¶10] Orally, Cardilli’s lead attorney argued that Cardilli reasonably believed that his use of deadly force was necessary because "he didn’t know how many more punches he could take and that Mr. Muse may get that gun." He argued that "it wasn’t just reasonable, again it was wise for Marky Cardilli to believe that his life was in danger because that guy wasn’t stopping for nothing. He wasn’t listening to anything. He wasn’t stopping for anything. He was going to do whatever he wanted. And Mark Cardilli’s belief, when he was in that corner, was more than reasonable."

[¶11] Cardilli’s memorandum focused on the justification of self-defense under 17-A M.R.S. § 108(2)(B), which addresses defense against an intruder and provides,

A person is justified in using deadly force upon another person:

….

B. When the person reasonably believes:

(1) That such other person has entered or is attempting to enter a dwelling place or has surreptitiously remained within a dwelling place without a license or privilege to do so; and

(2) That deadly force is necessary to prevent the infliction of bodily injury by such other person upon the person or a 3rd person present in the dwelling place.

(Emphasis added.) Because this justification permits the use of deadly force if reasonably necessary "to prevent the infliction of bodily injury," 17-A M.R.S. § 108(2)(B)(2), Cardilli’s memorandum disclaimed reliance on the much more limited justification in section 108(2)(A)(1), which permits the use of deadly force only if it is reasonably necessary to prevent another person’s imminent use of deadly force. See 17-A M.R.S. § 108(2)(A)(1) ("A person is justified in using deadly force upon another person: When the person reasonably believes it necessary and reasonably believes such other person is: About to use unlawful, deadly force against the person or a 3rd person."). Focusing on the evidence that Muse was punching Cardilli when Cardilli fired his gun, the memorandum argued that Cardilli did not "need to show that Mr. Muse was imminently going to use deadly force on [Cardilli]. This is not a self-defense case under 17-A M.R.S.A. § 108(2)(A) where the Court needs to determine whether Mr. Muse was going to inflict deadly force on any of the inhabitants of [the residence]." Cardilli’s memorandum also raised a defense-of-premises justification, see 17-A M.R.S. § 104 (2023), and argued that only if the court found unreasonable his belief that deadly force was necessary could it find him guilty of a lesser included offense based on "imperfect self-defense," State v. Hanaman, 2012 ME 40, ¶ 13 n.4, 38 A.3d 1278.

[¶12] The court entered a judgment on December 27, 2019. The court found that the State had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Cardilli voluntarily aimed the gun at Muse’s chest and fired three times, knowing that it was practically certain that the conduct would cause Muse’s death. See 17-A M.R.S. § 201(1)(A); 17-A M.R.S. § 35(2)(A) (2023). Having determined that the State had proved the elements of murder, the court turned to Cardilli’s asserted justifications.

[¶13] Applying the law of self-defense that Cardilli’s memorandum had advanced, 17-A M.R.S. § 108(2)(B), the court found that the State had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Cardilli "did not actually believe that his use of deadly force was necessary to prevent Isahak Muse from inflicting bodily injury upon defendant or a third person present in the dwelling." The court further found, however, that the State had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that "if [Cardilli] did actually believe that his use of deadly force was necessary to prevent Isahak Muse from inflicting bodily injury upon [Cardilli] or a third person present in the dwelling, his belief to that effect was objectively unreasonable." (Emphasis added.) The court therefore found that Cardilli "[r]ecklessly, or with criminal negligence, cause[d] the death of another human being," and was guilty of manslaughter. 17-A M.R.S. § 203(1)(A); see 17-A M.R.S. § 35(3)(A), (4)(A); see also Hanaman, 2012 ME 40, ¶ 13 n.4, 38 A.3d 1278.

[¶14] Before sentencing, Cardilli moved for the court to reconsider the verdict and for additional findings of fact. See M.R.U. Crim. P. 23(c). The court granted the motion for findings and incorporated additional findings into the judgment, but it denied the motion to reconsider...