State v. Wiggins

1

STATE OF MARYLAND v. MICHAEL WIGGINS

No. 817-2023

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

January 19, 2024

UNREPORTED ^[*]

Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case Nos. 110053022, 110218039

Leahy, Beachley, Wilner, Alan M. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

OPINION

Beachley, J.

On November 17, 2011, a Baltimore City jury convicted Michael Wiggins ("appellee") of first-degree murder, first-degree assault, and two counts of carrying a weapon openly with intent to injure. Nine years later, appellee filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. After the Circuit Court for Baltimore City granted appellee's petition, we granted the State's application for leave to appeal.

As we shall explain, binding precedent requires that we reverse the decision of the post-conviction court.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The facts of this case were previously summarized by this Court in an unreported, direct-appeal opinion Wiggins v. State, No. 2158, Sept. Term 2011 (filed Feb. 22, 2013):

On January 22, 2010, Isaac Tyson, Steron Seleston, Troy Fisher, Steven Myler, and Justin Nelson threw a birthday party for Darius Ray at . . . 6908 McClean Boulevard in Baltimore City.... [T]he party began around 11:30 p.m.... [A]s the party progressed Isaac and his friends noticed that there were people in the house that they did not know. Isaac explained that "at first it was one or two. Then it became more. And we started to take notice to it." Isaac and his friends discussed whether they should shut down the party at that time, but decided that if the uninvited partygoers were not causing trouble, they could stay.

As the night went on, however, some of the girls at the party complained that the uninvited partygoers were touching them inappropriately and making inappropriate comments. At around 4:00 a.m.... Darius and Troy . . . asked everyone to leave. Some people left, but others refused to leave and a fight broke out between the invited guests and the uninvited partygoers. The fight lasted for about five minutes and then after the fight had subsided, Wiggins, who was one of the uninvited guests, returned to the house "swinging knives."

When Wiggins returned, Justin and Darius were standing at the front door trying to keep people out of the house. The next thing Justin remembered was Wiggins swinging at him and he was swinging back.... Isaac testified that he moved Justin and Darius away from the entryway and locked the front door.... Darius [then] collapsed in the middle of the hallway. He was bleeding from his neck and chest. Isaac tried to stop the bleeding with towels and he called 911. Justin was also cut with a knife and sustained a minor injury to his right shoulder but he did not seek medical attention.

. . . Darius ultimately died as a result of the stab wounds he sustained to the left side of his chest and shoulder.

Isaac went down to the police station the next morning to speak with detectives and identified Wiggins in a photo array as "the person wielding both kitchen knives." Archilles Moore, another invited guest, also identified Wiggins in a photo array as the "person that I saw stab Darius." Justin also identified him in the photo array as the "individual that swung at me when me while [sic] Darius and I were standing in the doorway of the house. I also took a photograph of him sitting in the house on the sofa with my camera." Several other invited guests also identified Wiggins as the person that stabbed Darius.

Additionally, one of the uninvited guests, Nicky Woodward, testified as part of a plea agreement that he saw appellee stab "the chest of the man who was standing in the doorway." Appellee's trial for the murder of Darius Ray and the assault of Justin Nelson commenced on September 9, 2011. The following five voir dire questions^[1] are at issue in this appeal:

If you hold any feelings or beliefs relating to race, sex, color, religion, national origin, or any other personal attributes of the Defendants or any possible witnesses which would or might affect your ability to render a fair and impartial verdict in this case based on the law and the evidence, please stand.

If there is any matter, fact or thing, including any religious, psychological or moral beliefs that you hold which would affect your ability to give a fair and impartial verdict in this case, please stand.

I understand that a lot of people have strong feelings but if you have such strong feelings about the fact that it is alleged in this case that a weapon was involved. Such strong feelings that it would make it impossible for you to render a fair and impartial verdict because of that fact, please stand.

Again, I understand people have strong feelings but if you have such strong feelings about the violation of narcotic laws that you would be unable to render a fair and impartial verdict based on the facts and the evidence presented in this case during the trial, please stand.

I told you very briefly what the allegations are. If you feel that the nature of the case would make it impossible for you to render a fair and impartial verdict in this case, please stand.

Defense counsel did not object to any of these voir dire questions. Appellee also did not challenge these questions in his direct appeal. It is unclear from the record how many prospective jurors responded to these questions, but at least eight impaneled jurors did not respond to any of the court's voir dire to the jury venire.

After a fifteen-day trial, appellee was convicted of first-degree murder, first-degree assault, and two counts of carrying a weapon openly with intent to injure. Appellee was sentenced to life imprisonment for first-degree murder. He received a concurrent ten-year sentence for first-degree assault and two concurrent three-year sentences for each of the weapons charges. On direct appeal, we affirmed the convictions in an unreported opinion. Wiggins v. State, No. 2158, Sept. Term 2011 (filed Feb. 22, 2013).

APPELLEE'S PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF

On May 29, 2020, appellee filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The court held a post-conviction hearing on February 9, 2023. Appellee's trial counsel, Nancy Rainer, was the only witness. Ms. Rainer was asked if she was familiar with Dingle v. State, 361 Md. 1 (2000), at the time of appellee's trial in 2011. Ms. Rainer recounted that appellee's "case was over 11 years ago" and that, although she "tried to keep up with everything[,]" she could not "say a yes or no, because [she did not] remember." She further noted that it was a "very tumultuous time . . . over voir dire questions. And what could be asked, what couldn't be asked, what the judges were going to ask."

On March 1, 2023, the post-conviction court granted appellee's petition. The postconviction court found that the "trial court asked the voir dire questions in a way very similar to those" that were proscribed by Dingle. In its written opinion, the court applied the two-prong test from Strickland v. Washington, which provides that defense counsel renders ineffective assistance when (1) "counsel's performance was deficient" and (2) "the deficient performance prejudiced the defense." 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). The court found that trial counsel's failure to object to the voir dire questions was a "deficient act," and that appellee "was prejudiced because he was denied his constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury." Accordingly, the post-conviction court granted appellee's request for a new trial.^[2]

On June 26, 2023, we granted the State's application for leave to appeal the postconviction judgment.

DISCUSSION

The State argues that the post-conviction court erred because appellee "did not establish deficiency as to most of his claims, or prejudice as to any of his claims." Appellee counters that the "post-conviction court correctly concluded that the compound questions . . . were improper" and that trial counsel's failure to object to them amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. As to Strickland's second prong, appellee contends that the "postconviction court correctly concluded that [appellant] was prejudiced" by counsel's deficient representation.^[3]

Review of a "post-conviction court's findings regarding ineffective assistance of counsel [i]s a mixed question of law and fact. The factual findings of the post-conviction court are reviewed for clear error. The legal conclusions however, are reviewed de novo."

McGhee v. State, 482 Md. 48, 66 (2022) (quoting Wallace v. State, 475 Md. 639, 653 (2021)). "The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 21 of the

Maryland Declaration of Rights guarantee criminal defendants the right to 'effective assistance of counsel.'" Id. (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 686). To demonstrate an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, defendants must meet a two-prong test established by the Supreme Court in Strickland:

First, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the "counsel" guaranteed by the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.

466 U.S. at 687.

When evaluating whether trial counsel's performance was deficient, "a court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of professional assistance[.]" State v. Davis, 249 Md.App. 217, 222 (2021) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689). Doing so "requires that every...