MEMORANDUM OPINION

COLM F. CONNOLLY, District Judge.

Pending before the Court is an Application For A Writ Of Habeas Corpus Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("Petition") filed by Petitioner Alphonso Simmons ("Petitioner"). (D.I. 2) The State filed an Answer in opposition, to which Petitioner filed a Reply. (D.I. 12; D.I. 15) For the reasons discussed, the Court will dismiss the Petition and deny the relief requested.

I. BACKGROUND

On November 18, 2013, Petitioner pled guilty to drug dealing and two counts of possession of a deadly weapon by a person prohibited ("PDWBPP"). (D.I. 12 at 2) The Superior Court sentenced Petitioner on January 30, 2014 to a total of thirty-six years of Level V incarceration, suspended after five years for lower levels of supervision. (D.I. 12 at 2) He did not file a direct appeal.

On May 14, 2014, Delaware's Office of Defense Services ("OPD") filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Delaware Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 ("Rule 61 motion") on Petitioner's behalf. The Superior Court denied the motion on April 20, 2015, and denied his motion for reargument on June 17, 2015. (D.I. 12 at 2); see State v. Anderson et al, 2015 WL 2067158 (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 20, 2015); State v. Banks, 2015 WL 4400130 (Del. Super. Ct. June 17, 2015). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed that decision on December 9, 2015. (D.I. 12 at 2); see Banks v. State, 129 A.3d 881 (Table), 2015 WL 8481972 (Del. Dec. 9, 2015).

On September 21, 2016, the OPD filed a § 2254 Petition on Petitioner's behalf. Petitioner makes two claims. First, he asserts that his lack of knowledge of an evidence scandal at the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner ("OCME") was material to his decision to plead guilty and, therefore, his guilty plea was involuntary pursuant to Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748 (1970). (D.I. 2) Second, he argues that the Delaware Supreme Court made unreasonable findings of fact during his post-conviction appeal regarding OCME misconduct. The State filed an Answer asserting that the Petition should be dismissed as meritless. (D.I. 12) Petitioner filed a Reply arguing that the Petition warrants habeas relief. (D.I. 15)

A. OCME CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

The relevant information regarding the OCME evidence mishandling is set forth below:

Brown v. State, 108 A.3d 1201, 1204-05 (Del. 2015).

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

When a state's highest court has adjudicated a federal habeas claim on the merits, the federal court must review the claim under the deferential standard contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). A claim has been "adjudicated on the merits" for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) if the state court decision finally resolves the claim on the basis of its substance, rather than on a procedural or some other ground. See Thomas v. Horn, 570 F.3d 105, 115 (3d Cir. 2009). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), federal habeas relief may only be granted if the state court's decision was "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States," or the state court's decision was an unreasonable determination of the facts based on the evidence adduced in the trial. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) & (2); see also Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412 (2000); Appel v. Horn, 250 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2001). This deferential standard of § 2254(d) applies even "when a state court's order is unaccompanied by an opinion explaining the reasons relief has been denied"; as recently explained by the Supreme Court, "it may be presumed that the state court adjudicated the claim on the merits in the absence of any indication or state-law procedural principles to the contrary." Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 98-100 (2011).

Finally, a federal court must presume that the state court's determinations of factual issues are correct. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); see also Appel, 250 F.3d at 210. This presumption of correctness applies to both explicit and implicit findings of fact, and is only rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); see also Campbell v. Vaughn, 209 F.3d 280, 286 (3d Cir. 2000); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 341 (2003) (stating that the clear and convincing standard in § 2254(e)(1) applies to factual issues, whereas the unreasonable application standard of § 2254(d)(2) applies to factual decisions).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Claim One: Unreasonable Application of Brady v. United States.

In his introduction to Claim One, Petitioner asserts that:

(D.I. 7 at 7)

The Court rejects Petitioner's argument that the Delaware Supreme Court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law by citing to Aricidiacono v. State, 125 A.3d 677 (Del. 2015) rather than directly to Brady v. United States. The Delaware Supreme Court's Aricidiacono decision properly cites and articulates Brady v. United States' standard for determining the voluntariness of guilty pleas. See Aricidiacono, 125 A.3d at 679. By citing and applying Aricidiacono when denying Petitioner's Brady v. United States argument, the Delaware Supreme Court appropriately relied on Delaware caselaw articulating the proper federal standard applicable to Petitioner's Claim. See Fahy v. Horn, 516 F.3d 169, 196 (3d Cir. 2008) (finding that Supreme Court of Pennsylvania's decision was not "contrary to" clearly established federal law because it appropriately relied on its own state court cases which articulated the proper standard derived from Supreme Court precedent). Thus, the issue as to whether the Delaware Supreme Court unreasonably applied Brady v. United States in holding that Petitioner's plea was not rendered involuntary by his lack of knowledge about, and the State's late disclosure of, the OCME misconduct is properly before the Court.

In Claim One, Petitioner contends that the Delaware Supreme Court did not comply with Brady v. State's requirement that "all of the relevant circumstances surrounding" the plea must be considered when assessing if his plea was voluntary. (D.I. 7 at 20) He asserts that the Delaware Supreme Court erred by focusing on Petitioner's admission of guilt during the plea colloquy, contending that a "defendant's recitals on the record at the time he entered his guilty plea do not foreclose proof at a later time that those themselves were involuntary," and "the assessment of such proof does not involve any question of guilt or innocence." (D.I. 7 at 20) Specifically, he alleges that,

(D.I. 7 at 30-31)

Citing to the First Circuit's decision in Ferrara v. United States, 456 F.3d 278 (1st Cir. 2006), Petitioner asserts that the OCME misconduct rendered his guilty plea involuntary because it was egregious, antedated Petitioner's plea, is imputed to the State, and was material to Petitioner's choice to plead guilty.3 (D.I. 7 at 28-34) In Ferrara, the First Circuit held that a defendant may "collaterally attack his sentence on the ground that his guilty plea was not knowing or voluntary if his claim is based on evidence not available to him at the time of the plea," without distinguishing between evidence that is newly discovered and evidence that was withheld as a result of a Brady v. Maryland violation. Ferrara, 456 F.3d at 289. The Ferrara Court established a two-pronged test for determining if a defendant has a right to rescind his guilty plea because of newly discovered government misconduct: (1) egregious impermissible government misconduct antedated the entry of the plea; and (2) the misconduct influenced the defendant's decision to plead guilty or, in in other words, the misconduct was material to that choice. See Ferrara, 456 F.3d at 290.

Petitioner presented essentially the same argument to the Delaware Supreme Court on post-conviction appeal, which denied the argument as meritless. Since the Delaware Supreme Court in Petitioner's case relied on Aricidiacono when it denied instant argument, the Court will also reference Aricidiacono when analyzing the Delaware Supreme Court's decision under § 2254(d)(1).

In Aricidiacono, the Delaware Supreme Court rejected the defendants' due process argument that their pleas were involuntary under Brady v. United States, explaining:

Aricidiacono, 125 A.3d at 679. The Aricidiacono Court also rejected the argument — which was premised on the First Circuit's decision in Ferrara — that the defendants' pleas were rendered involuntary due to the "egregious" OCME misconduct that antedated their pleas, because none of the defendants contended that they "were not in fact telling the truth when they freely admitted their factual guilt." Aricidiacono, 125 A.3d at 680. Describing Ferrara's "egregious misconduct" rationale as a "gloss on Brady v. United States," the Delaware Supreme Court refused to "embrace" the defendants' "egregious misconduct" argument. Nevertheless, the Delaware Supreme Court noted that "even if there was conduct at the OCME that could be said to be egregious, we have determined, in accordance with our prior reasoning in Ira Brown v. State and Anzara Brown v. State, that this conduct did not materially affect any of the pleas." Aricidiacono, 125 A.3d at 680 n. 24. The Delaware Supreme Court opined:

Aricidiacono, 125 A.3d at 681.

With respect to the Court's § 2254(d)(1) inquiry in this case, both Parties acknowledge that the clearly established federal law governing the voluntariness of guilty plea claims is the standard articulated in Brady v. United States. Petitioner, however, argues that the Court should incorporate Ferrara's approach and consider undisclosed "egregious government misconduct" preceding the entry of a guilty plea as a relevant circumstance under Brady v. United States, namely, a misrepresentation that induced Petitioner to enter a guilty plea. The Court is not persuaded. First, Ferrara does not constitute "clearly established federal law" because it is not a decision issued by the United States Supreme Court. Second, the Court has not uncovered any Supreme Court precedent adopting Ferrara's rationale equating "egregious undisclosed government misconduct" with a misrepresentation capable of rendering a guilty plea involuntary.4 And finally, the Court has not found any Third Circuit case law mirroring Ferrara's holding or explicitly adopting its reasoning. Indeed, at least one federal district court has criticized Ferrara as an overly "expansive interpretation of the relevant language from Brady v. United State."5 Hasbajrami v. United States, 2014 WL 4954596, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2014).

Even if Petitioner's argument is not considered to be premised specifically on Ferrara, but rather, on general due process principles established in Brady v. United States, he is not entitled to habeas relief. In Brady v. United States, the Supreme Court determined that a guilty plea is not rendered invalid merely because it is entered to avoid a harsher sentence, explaining:

Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. at 755; see also Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973) (explaining a defendant may challenge a conviction based on a guilty plea on the ground that the plea was not "voluntary and intelligent."); Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 56 (1985) (noting that the "longstanding test for determining the validity of a guilty plea is whether the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative choices of action open to the defendant."). The Supreme Court has noted that a plea is involuntary if it is induced by "actual or threatened physical harm or by mental coercion overbearing the will of the defendant," or if the defendant is so "gripped" by fear or hope of leniency that he cannot "rationally weigh the advantages of going to trial against the advantages of pleading guilty." Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. at 750 However, a plea is not involuntary "whenever motivated by the defendant's desire to accept the certainty or probability of a lesser penalty rather than face a wider range of possibilities extending from acquittal to conviction and a higher penalty authorized by law for the crime charged." Id. at 751.

Significantly, "the voluntariness of [a defendant's] plea can be determined only by considering all of the relevant circumstances surrounding it." Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. at 749. While the Supreme Court has not articulated a list of the "relevant circumstances" to be considered when assessing the voluntariness of a plea, the Supreme Court has noted that a plea is not unintelligent just because later events prove that going to trial may have been a wiser choice:

Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. at 756-57. In McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 769-70 (1970), the Court reaffirmed this principle while underscoring the inherent risk of entering a guilty plea:

The Court has also advised that

Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. at 757. In other words, "the Constitution, in respect to a defendant's awareness of relevant circumstances, does not require complete knowledge of the relevant circumstances, but permits a court to accept a guilty plea ... despite various forms of misapprehension under which a defendant might labor." United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 630 (2002) (emphasis added).

Finally, it is well-settled that a petitioner challenging the voluntary nature of his plea on habeas review faces a heavy burden. See Zilich v. Reid, 36 F.3d 317, 320 (3d Cir. 1994). The "representations of the defendant, his lawyer, and the prosecutor at [a plea] hearing, as well as any findings made by the judge accepting the plea, constitute a formidable barrier in any subsequent collateral proceedings. Solemn declarations in open court carry a strong presumption of verity. Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 73-74 (1977). Thus, there is

Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. at 757.

After reviewing the Delaware Supreme Court's decision within the aforementioned legal framework, the Court concludes that the Delaware Supreme Court did not unreasonably apply Brady v. United States and its progeny by holding that Petitioner's lack of knowledge about the OCME misconduct did not render his guilty plea involuntary.6 Instead, the Delaware Supreme Court considered the "relevant circumstances" required by Brady v. United States when assessing the voluntariness of Petitioner's plea. For instance, the Delaware Supreme Court considered the substantial benefit Petitioner derived from pleading guilty, as demonstrated by its statement that, "[a]s to [the other] defendants, the State notes the substantial benefits the defendants obtained by the plea process, with most defendants obtaining a plea to a greatly reduced set of charges and to sentences far below that which they could have received had they gone to trial." Aricidiacono, 125 A.3d at 680. Here, Petitioner was charged with drug dealing, aggravated possession, three counts of illegal possession of a controlled substance, two counts of PDWBPP, possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of a firearm or firearm ammunition by a person prohibited, and possession of a weapon with a removed, obliterated or altered serial number. (D.I. 12 at 1) In exchange for pleading guilty, the State dropped the other eight charges against him, which reduced the maximum sentence he faced. (D.I. 12 at 3)

Additionally, the Delaware Supreme Court stated it was "adher[ing]" to its prior decision in Brewer v. State in rejecting Petitioner's argument7 and, in Brewer, the Delaware Supreme Court opined:

Brewer v. State, 119 A.3d 42 (Table), 2015 WL 4606541, at *2-*3 (Del. July 30, 2015) (emphasis added).

The Brewer excerpt demonstrates that, as clearly mandated by Brady v. United States, the Delaware Supreme Court considered if Petitioner entered the plea upon the advice of competent counsel. The excerpt also demonstrates that the Delaware Supreme Court considered, and concluded, that the unrelated general OCME misconduct did not amount to improper coercion and did not affect Petitioner's awareness of the direct consequences of pleading guilty. The Delaware Supreme Court explained that "the defendants here submitted no evidence to suggest a natural inference that any misconduct at the OCME (or lack of knowledge of that conduct) coerced or otherwise induced the defendants to falsely plead guilty." Aricidiacono, 125 A.3d at 679. As the Court explains in its discussion regarding Claim Two, the Delaware Supreme Court reasonably determined the facts by concluding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that his case was tainted by the OCME misconduct. Consequently, the Delaware Supreme Court's refusal to issue a per se determination that the general existence of OCME misconduct was sufficient to render Petitioner's guilty plea involuntary, without proof that there was any actual OCME misconduct with respect to the evidence in Petitioner's case, did not violate Brady v. United States.

Similarly, the Delaware Supreme Court did not violate Brady v. United States by placing great significance on Petitioner's admission of guilt during the plea colloquy, because it considered this fact in conjunction with Petitioner's failure to assert his factual innocence during or after the plea. An admission of guilt "is entitled to significant (albeit not dispositive) weight when, as now, [a defendant] seeks to vacate that plea through a collateral attack." Wilkins, 754 F.3d at 30. "Such an admission is especially compelling because [he] neither attempts to explain it away nor makes any assertion of factual innocence." Id. Placing significance on Petitioner's admission of guilt was also appropriate since he gave a post-Miranda statement that "he knew the guns were in his bedroom and [] confessed that he sold drugs for money because he did not have a job." (D.I. 12 at 3)

Given Petitioner's failure to demonstrate a link between the misconduct and his case, Petitioner's unawareness of the unrelated general OCME misconduct only amounted to one of the "various forms of misapprehension under which a defendant might labor."8 See Ruiz, 536 U.S. at 630. As Petitioner concedes, and the body of Delaware caselaw concerning the OCME misconduct demonstrates, the OCME investigation constitutes impeachment evidence that would only be useful if Petitioner had decided to go to trial. See Ira Brown, 108 A.3d at 1206-07. In Ruiz, the United States Supreme Court specifically held that the Government is not constitutionally required to disclose material impeachment evidence prior to entering a plea agreement with a criminal defendant. See Ruiz, 536 U.S. at 633. The Ruiz Court explained:

Ruiz, 536 U.S. at 629. The Supreme Court also recently reaffirmed that "a guilty plea makes [case-related constitutional defects that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea] irrelevant to the constitutional validity of the conviction," "[b]ecause the defendant has admitted the charges against him." Class v. United States, 138 S.Ct. 798, 805-06 (2018).

As suggested by the aforementioned jurisprudence, if unknown non-exculpatory conduct at the OCME was not material to a defendant's decision to plead guilty, that same non-exculpatory misconduct cannot provide a basis for rendering a defendant's counseled decision to enter a guilty plea involuntary, especially when that defendant participated in a plea colloquy in open court, freely acknowledged his guilt, and has not asserted his factual innocence. Although knowledge of the OCME misconduct would have provided Petitioner with "more bargaining leverage," it cannot be said that the lack of that knowledge rendered his guilty plea involuntary. Rather, Petitioner's argument amounts only to a miscalculation of the strength of the State's case.

In sum, the Court concludes that the Delaware Supreme Court did not unreasonably apply Brady v. United States in holding that Petitioner's guilty plea was not rendered involuntary because of Petitioner's lack of knowledge about the OCME misconduct. Accordingly, the Court will deny Claim One for failing to satisfy § 2254(d)(1).9

B. Claim Two: Unreasonable Finding of Fact

In affirming the Superior Court's denial of Petitioner's Rule 61 motion, the Delaware Supreme Court made the following observations about the misconduct at the OCME:

Aricidiacono, 125 A.3d at 677-78. The Delaware Supreme Court held that "the poor evidence-handling practices at the OCME, however regrettable," did not entitle defendants who had freely admitted their guilt when pleading guilty to relief. Id. at 678-79. The Delaware Supreme Court then stated, even if it assumed that the conduct at the OCME amounted to egregious government misconduct, "this conduct did not materially affect any of the pleas." Id. at 680 n.24

In Claim Two, Petitioner contends that the Delaware Supreme Court "incorporated unreasonable [factual] findings" from Aricidiacono that "minimized the OCME misconduct and belittled the unrealistic burden of proof it placed on the petitioners." (D.I. 7 at 24) Petitioner's true complaint appears to be what he terms "the state court's misguided fixation on [Petitioner's] admission of guilt rather than on the voluntariness of that admission." (D.I. 7 at 21) His statement that "[i]t is inconceivable that the facts which the state court ignored, belittled or misconstrued are not relevant to a finding that, but for the State's failure to disclose evidence of government misconduct, there is a reasonable probability that [Petitioner] would not have pled guilty" (D.I. 15 at 9) also appears to challenge the Delaware Supreme Court's refusal to characterize the OCME misconduct as "egregious undisclosed government misconduct" in its Brady v. United States analysis. To the extent this portrayal is an accurate summary of Petitioner's argument in Claim Two, the Court has already rejected the argument in its discussion of Claim One. Moreover, this argument fails for the simple reason that the Delaware court's reasonable application of federal law rendered unnecessary any need to delve further into OCME employee misconduct or the integrity of the drug evidence in case.

Even if Petitioner's factual challenge is more than a rehashing of Claim One, it is unavailing. Petitioner appears to be dissatisfied with the state courts' description of the specific instances of OCME misconduct, as indicated in his chart depicting "State Court's Unreasonable Findings" versus "Actual Facts." (D.I. 7 at 25-28) He asserts that the state courts' findings "either contradicted or understated significant facts in the record." (D.I. 7 at 25) In short, he appears to contend that the Delaware Supreme Court unreasonably determined there was an insufficient link between the OCME misconduct and his case. (D.I. 7 at 23)

Since Claim Two challenges the factual basis of the Delaware Supreme Court's decision, the relevant inquiry is whether that decision was "based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). In making this determination, the Court must presume that the Delaware Supreme Court's factual findings are correct unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1).

After reviewing Petitioner's argument in context with the record, the Court concludes that Petitioner has failed to provide clear and convincing evidence rebutting the Delaware Supreme Court's factual determination that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a sufficient link between the general OCME misconduct and his case. Theresa Moore was the chemist who tested the drugs in this case. Petitioner concedes that the there is no evidence that Moore engaged in misconduct, but asserts that her credibility was compromised because "she was on the list of potential witnesses in the Daneshgar case who had credibility issues." (D.I. 7 at 16, 33) Additionally, the police field tested all the seized suspected crack and powder cocaine, which tested positive for cocaine, and Petitioner gave a post-Miranda statement confessing that he sold drugs for money and that he abused cocaine. (D.I. 12 at 3) Considering all of these circumstances together with Petitioner's failure to assert his factual innocence, the Court cannot conclude that the Delaware Supreme Court unreasonably determined the facts by holding that the existence of overall misconduct at the OCME was insufficient to establish that Petitioner's case was tainted by the same misconduct.

As explained by the Superior Court in State v. Irwin, just one of the over 700 Delaware post-conviction cases involving the OCME misconduct, and relied on by the Aricidiacono Court:10

State v. Irwin, 2014 WL 6734821, at *7, *9 (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 17, 2014). Accordingly, the Court will deny Claim Two.

C. Request for Evidentiary Hearing

Petitioner "requests that this Court conduct an evidentiary hearing and allow full briefing on his claim." (D.I. 2 at 17; D.I. 7 at 34) Additionally, Petitioner asks that, in the event the Court denies him habeas relief, it "order the State to retest evidence; order the State to produce evidence envelopes, all chain of custody records and any other discovery related to the evidence and its handling." (D.I. 5 at 35) Having determined that the instant Petition does not warrant relief under § 2254(d)(1) and (2), the Court will deny Petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing and additional discovery. See Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 474 (2007) ("Because the deferential standards prescribed by § 2254 control whether to grant habeas relief, a federal court must take into those standards in deciding whether an evidentiary hearing is appropriate.").

IV. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

A district court issuing a final order denying a § 2254 petition must also decide whether to issue a certificate of appealability. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 22.2 (2011). A certificate of appealability is appropriate when a petitioner makes a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right" by demonstrating "that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

The Court has concluded that Petitioner's habeas claims do not warrant relief. In the Court's view, reasonable jurists would not find its assessment of Petitioner's constitutional claims to be debatable. Accordingly, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed, Petitioner's Application For A Writ Of Habeas Corpus Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED without an evidentiary hearing. An appropriate Order will be entered.