Filed: Oct. 20, 2009
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit October 20, 2009 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 08-3262 (D.C. Nos. 2:03-CR-20167-JWL-1 MAURICE IVORY, & 2:08-CV-02250-JWL) (D. Kan.) Defendant-Appellant. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before LUCERO, BALDOCK, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. Defendant-Appellant Maurice Ivory was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced to 2
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit October 20, 2009 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 08-3262 (D.C. Nos. 2:03-CR-20167-JWL-1 MAURICE IVORY, & 2:08-CV-02250-JWL) (D. Kan.) Defendant-Appellant. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before LUCERO, BALDOCK, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. Defendant-Appellant Maurice Ivory was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced to 26..
More
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
October 20, 2009
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 08-3262
(D.C. Nos. 2:03-CR-20167-JWL-1
MAURICE IVORY, & 2:08-CV-02250-JWL)
(D. Kan.)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before LUCERO, BALDOCK, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
Defendant-Appellant Maurice Ivory was convicted of being a felon in
possession of a firearm and sentenced to 262 months’ imprisonment. He appeals
from a district court order that denied his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for sentencing
relief. This Court issued a certificate of appealability to consider whether his
trial counsel was ineffective in not calling his retained expert to testify about the
DNA found on the firearm. We affirm.
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is
not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,
and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value
consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
B ACKGROUND
In January of 2000, police officers working with the FBI’s Violent Crime
Fugitive Task Force arrested Ivory, who was on parole following an assault
conviction, and found him carrying a 9mm semi-automatic handgun. The gun was
eventually released to its owner, Ivory’s girlfriend. Ivory’s parole was revoked,
but some time later, he was paroled again.
In September of 2003, officers executing a parole-violation warrant for
Ivory at his residence found the same gun, fully loaded, on the front seat of a car
parked in the garage. Next to the gun was a bag of crack cocaine, and inside the
car’s glove box were documents bearing Ivory’s name and signature. Ivory was
discovered hiding in the home’s attic.
Ivory was charged with three counts: (1) possessing crack cocaine with
intent to distribute; (2) possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking;
and (3) being a felon in possession of a firearm. At trial, forensic chemist Mary
Koch testified that the DNA found on the firearm’s trigger guard and slide was
consistent with Ivory’s DNA profile. There was, however, “a minor portion of
the [DNA] mixture” from the slide that was consistent with an unidentified
person’s DNA; but the “major portion of the mixture” on the slide was consistent
with Ivory’s DNA. ROA, Vol. 2, Doc. 131 at 240-41. Koch explained that “the
person who touched the object last will deposit most of the DNA.” Id. at 295.
-2-
Ivory’s theory of the case was that Koch had cross-contaminated the
evidence collected from the gun with Ivory’s DNA sample when performing her
analysis. Ivory’s counsel elicited from Koch that cross-contamination had
occurred between two other cases in Koch’s lab. Specifically, “DNA from one
case show[ed] up in the DNA testing from another [case].” Id. at 321. But Koch
steadfastly refuted defense counsel’s attempts to establish a possibility of cross-
contamination in Ivory’s case. See, e.g.,
id. at 269. The most defense counsel
could do was point out that Koch had committed “an isolated clerical error” in her
bench notes—by designating the evidentiary samples as “1.2” and “1.3,” instead
of “2.1” and “3.1,” during the DNA quantification phase.
Id. at 278-79.
To support his cross-contamination theory, Ivory’s counsel had retained a
DNA expert, Dean Stetler, Ph.D. In response to a government motion to exclude
Dr. Stetler’s testimony, Ivory’s counsel stated that Dr. Stetler would testify “that
at certain phases during the DNA testing conducted by the government’s experts
there were risks of cross contamination” of the evidence samples with the known
sample of Ivory’s DNA. Id., Doc. 130 at 3. The district court ruled that it would
permit Dr. Stetler to testify, but only to the extent explained by defense counsel.
At trial, after Koch concluded her testimony, defense counsel summarily informed
the court that he would not be utilizing Dr. Stetler.
The jury found Ivory guilty on the felon-in-possession count, but hung on
the other two counts. The district court imposed a 262-month sentence.
-3-
Ivory appealed, arguing that his counsel was ineffective in not having
Dr. Stetler testify. This Court dismissed the appeal, see United States v. Ivory,
223 F. App’x 808, 808-10 (10th Cir. 2007), and Ivory pursued his ineffective-
assistance claim in the district court, arguing that Dr. Stetler could have
undermined key aspects of Koch’s testimony.
The district court denied Ivory relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. First, it ruled
that Ivory’s counsel was not deficient in declining to call Dr. Stetler as a witness.
The court reasoned that defense counsel made a strategic decision based on the
circumstances at the time: (1) Dr. Stetler could be used only regarding the risks
of cross-contamination; (2) defense counsel had already succeeded in revealing to
the jury both that cross-contamination had occurred in Koch’s lab and that Koch
had made an error during her analysis of Ivory’s case; (3) Koch could be recalled
to further refute the defense’s cross-contamination theory if Dr. Stetler testified;
and (4) the government could undermine Dr. Stetler’s testimony on the ground
that he had performed no independent testing on the DNA samples in the case.
The district court thus concluded that it was not unreasonable to proceed without
Dr. Stetler, given the minimal value of his anticipated testimony and the inherent
risks of putting him on the stand.
The district court also concluded that there would have been no prejudice
even if defense counsel had performed deficiently. Among other things, the court
cited evidence showing the connection between Ivory and the car in which the
-4-
firearm was found, as well as the evidence that Ivory had possessed the very same
firearm in the past.
Ivory now appeals.
D ISCUSSION
We review “the district court’s legal rulings on a § 2255 motion de novo
and its findings of fact for clear error.” United States v. Kennedy, 225 F.3d 1187,
1193 (10th Cir. 2000) (quotation omitted). A claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel is a mixed question of law and fact that we review de novo.
Id. at 1197.
To prevail on an ineffective-assistance claim, the petitioner must show both
that: (1) “counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness”; and (2) there is a “reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s
unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984).
Ivory re-asserts his district-court arguments concerning defense counsel’s
decision to not call Dr. Stetler as a witness. After reviewing the record, the
parties’ appellate briefs, the district court’s thorough order, and the relevant legal
authorities, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying Ivory’s
§ 2255 motion.
-5-
C ONCLUSION
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment for substantially the
same reasons given by the district court in its memorandum and order dated
August 22, 2008.
Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
-6-
