Hyman v. Hoekstra

41 F.4th 272

Terrence Lowell HYMAN, Petitioner – Appellee,

v.Casandra Skinner HOEKSTRA, Interim Secretary, North Carolina Department of Public Safety, Respondent – Appellant.

No. 21-6852

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued: March 11, 2022

Decided: July 19, 2022

ARGUED: Nicholaos George Vlahos, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Kristen Lindsay Todd, NORTH CAROLINA PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES, INC., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, Mary Carla Babb, Special Deputy Attorney General, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.

Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded with instructions by published opinion. Judge Agee wrote the opinion, in which Judge Wilkinson joined. Judge King wrote a separate opinion dissenting.

AGEE, Circuit Judge:

Casandra Skinner Hoekstra, the Interim Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Public Safety (the "State"), appeals from the district court's order granting state prisoner Terrence Lowell Hyman's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. For the following reasons, we vacate the district court's judgment and remand with instructions to dismiss Hyman's petition.

I.

"As a federal court reviewing a state court's decision under § 2254, we do so through a narrow lens, ‘carefully consider[ing] all the reasons and evidence supporting [it].’ Mahdi v. Stirling , 20 F.4th 846, 854 (4th Cir. 2021) (alterations in original) (quoting Mays v. Hines , ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct. 1145, 1149, 209 L.Ed.2d 265 (2021) (per curiam)). Only then may we determine whether a state court's judgment resulted from "an error that lies beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement." Mays , 141 S. Ct. at 1146.¹

Hyman's sole claim in his § 2254 petition is that his lead trial counsel, Teresa Smallwood, rendered ineffective assistance by failing to withdraw and testify on his behalf to impeach Derrick Speller, one of the State's key witnesses. We begin by recounting the offense underlying Hyman's conviction and summarizing the proceedings before the North Carolina state trial court. Next, we review the evidentiary hearing addressing whether Smallwood operated under an actual conflict of interest based on her prior representation of Speller. After discussing Hyman's post-conviction proceedings, we then turn to the district court's grant of his petition from which the State now appeals.

A. The Offense

The Supreme Court of North Carolina ("SCNC") summarized the events underlying Hyman's conviction:

At approximately 10:00 p.m. on 5 May 2001, Earnest Bennett arrived at the L and Q nightclub with his friends Shelton Lamont Gilliam, Tyrone Knight, and Alton Bennett. As the night progressed and early morning arrived, a man confronted Mr. Bennett, leading to an argument between the two men that escalated into an altercation after a "crew of people" approached Mr. Bennett and began to hit him with "bottles, chairs and basically everything that they could find."

State v. Hyman , 371 N.C. 363, 817 S.E.2d 157, 159 (2018). As the altercation escalated, Bennett was shot multiple times inside and outside the club. He later succumbed to his injuries.

Hyman was arrested soon after, and the trial court appointed Smallwood to represent him. See J.A. 286 (Smallwood's time sheet reflecting that she "review[ed] appointment notice/talk[ed] to family" on May 14, 2001). The court also appointed W. Hackney High as second-chair counsel. Nearly three months after the shooting, the Bertie County, North Carolina, grand jury returned a one-count indictment charging Hyman with first-degree murder.

B. The Trial and Smallwood's Cross-Examination of Speller

The case went to trial in September 2003, with Superior Court Judge Cy A. Grant, Sr., presiding. Over several weeks, the jury heard conflicting accounts about what happened the night of Bennett's murder.

Derrick Speller testified ... that, after the altercation had been in progress for approximately fifteen minutes, he observed ... Hyman enter the nightclub with a firearm and shoot it at Mr. Bennett. At that point, Mr. Speller observed Mr. Bennett "clench his side and run for the door." As Mr. Bennett reached the nightclub door, [Hyman] shot him again in the small of his back. According to Mr. Speller, Mr. Bennett and [Hyman] exited the nightclub once [Hyman] had shot Mr. Bennett a second time. Outside the nightclub, Mr. Speller saw [Hyman] "kneeling down over" Mr. Bennett, who was on the ground, and shoot Mr. Bennett a third time....^[2]

On the other hand, Demetrius Pugh testified ... that he observed Demetrius Jordan^[3] shoot Mr. Bennett multiple times inside and outside of the nightclub.^[4] According to Demetrius Pugh, Mr. Jordan had a .38 caliber handgun inside the nightclub and procured a nine millimeter handgun from his van after leaving the nightclub's interior. In addition, Lloyd Pugh^{[5 ]} testified ... that he heard two gunshots inside the nightclub. Although Lloyd Pugh could not see who had fired these shots, he knew that [Hyman] had not fired them because he could see [Hyman], who was leaving the nightclub at that time, and observed that he did not have a firearm on his person when the shots were fired. As Lloyd Pugh attempted to bring the fight inside the nightclub under control, he heard additional gunshots outside. Simultaneously, Lloyd Pugh observed [Hyman] reentering the nightclub without a firearm in his possession.

Hyman , 817 S.E.2d at 159, 371 N.C. 363 (footnotes omitted).

Amid this conflicting testimony, Speller testified on direct examination that he had spoken with Smallwood before the trial, and suggested that she had "wanted [him] to help her with the case at one point in time" J.A. 110. After a fourteen-minute recess, Smallwood began her cross-examination of Speller, which included the following exchange.

SMALLWOOD: I believe you testified earlier that you had not talked to any kind of law enforcement. The only person you talked to was Teresa?

SPELLER: Yes.

SMALLWOOD: And you're speaking of me?

SPELLER: Yes.

SMALLWOOD: You and I had a conversation in and around the time you were being convicted of a crime; isn't that correct?

SPELLER: Excuse me?

SMALLWOOD: You had a case that was pending here in Bertie County? You were trying to keep from going to jail?

SPELLER: When we talked about what?

SMALLWOOD: You said you talked to me about this matter?

SPELLER: Yes.

SMALLWOOD: You caught me a little off guard because I couldn't remember.

SPELLER: I'm sorry about that.

SMALLWOOD: You had a case that was pending that I represented you on; isn't that right?

SPELLER: That was prior to me—prior to us talking about this case.

...

SMALLWOOD: At some point in time during that conversation it came up that you had been at the L and Q, do you remember that?

SPELLER: No.

SMALLWOOD: You don't remember that?

SPELLER: No.

SMALLWOOD: Do you remember when you told the members of the jury this earlier that I wanted you to help me, it was because you told me a story on that particular occasion as to what you say happened; isn't that correct?

SPELLER: No, it's not.

SMALLWOOD: Do you recall when you sat in my office, you remember coming to my office?

SPELLER: Yes.

SMALLWOOD: You sat in my office and you told me across the desk from me that you had seen Demetrius Jordan ... shoot a weapon; isn't that correct?

SPELLER: No, it's not.

SMALLWOOD: And you told me that the reason you didn't want to come forward is because you had been hustling for Turnell Lee and Demetrius Jordan and them dudes was lethal. Do you recall saying that?

SPELLER: No, I did not.

SMALLWOOD: They would off you in a minute. You don't remember that?

SPELLER: No.

SMALLWOOD: I didn't either. Until I went back and got the notes. Then in the course of the conversation when you and I were talking, you said that you would help in any way you could; isn't that correct?

SPELLER: No, it's not.

...

SMALLWOOD: Well, back in '01 when you talked to me you said you saw the whole thing; isn't that right?

SPELLER: We never talked about this case.

SMALLWOOD: We didn't talk?

SPELLER: No.

SMALLWOOD: Didn't you say you told Teresa the whole story?

SPELLER: No, [the district attorney] asked me had I talked to anybody.... I said, I haven't spoken to nobody about this case other than you.

When I spoke to you about that case, that was when you sent Tyrone Watson to say that you wanted to talk to me, Turnell and a few other people. I went to your office and seen—and talked to you and [Tonza Ruffin⁶ ] in the parking lot at your office. You all was leaving.

I told you at that time I couldn't help you on this case, that I would harm [Hyman] more than I could help him if I was brought on the stand to testify. That's the only conversation that you and I ever had about this case.

SMALLWOOD: Derrick, that's the second time we talked about this; isn't that correct?

SPELLER: No, it's not. That is the only time you and I ever talked about this case.

SMALLWOOD: Didn't I represent you in '01?

SPELLER: No, [Tonza Ruffin] represented me.

SMALLWOOD: Well, our office. Our office represented you, correct?

SPELLER: Yes.

SMALLWOOD: That was your occasion to come to the office, do you recall?

SPELLER: To talk about my probation violation.

SMALLWOOD: Correct.

SPELLER: Yes.

SMALLWOOD: And I ultimately represented you in that case; isn't that correct?

SPELLER: Did you represent me in that case?

SMALLWOOD: Before the judge, you and I stood before the judge on that case?

SPELLER: Yes, we stood before the judge.

SMALLWOOD: And it was in the occurrence of that that you talked about all these things as to why you never came forward; isn't that correct?

SPELLER: No, it is not.

SMALLWOOD: You're telling me today that it was not you who said, Demetrius and Turnell, I hustled for them and I can't talk about those guys because them dudes are lethal. You don't recall telling me that?

SPELLER: We never had this conversation.

SMALLWOOD: And we never had a conversation

...