Gonyou v. State of Maine

Maine Superior

Gonyou v. State of Maine

DecidedMay 7, 2009

DocketKENcr-07-63

StatusUnpublished

This text of Gonyou v. State of Maine (Gonyou v. State of Maine) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gonyou v. State of Maine, (Me. Super. Ct. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE Rt Ci'~ ! ,/:~!I .' L -, r', ~:; SUPERIOR COURT KENNEBEC, ss rt. ~ \>iEL<- __: .. ~i·.I r 1,', • .,: ; ..... --: CRIMINAL ACTION DOCKET NO. CR-07-63 zaoq !;!AY -l P 2: 52 ; ·f'· ,~. ,,) /' 'I, I RONALD GONYOU, . . . . r". 0'-' !' _

(, Ll,: ,'\ v;' L ,~, ',..: r --~ T 'J Petitioner v. DECISION AND ORDER ON PETITION FOR STATE OF MAINE, POST-CONVICTION REVIEW

Respondent

On August 10, 2005, the petitioner was found guilty after a jury trial of count I of

the indictment, sexual exploitation of a minor, and count III, aggravated furnishing of

scheduled drugs (marijuana). He was found not guilty of count II, aggravated

furnishing of scheduled drugs (cocaine). On September 6,2005, he received a sentence

of ten years incarceration, all but seven years suspended, and three years of probation

on count I and two years on count III, to be served concurrently with the sentence on

count 1.

In his amended petition, the petitioner alleges that he received ineffective

assistance of counsel at trial based on the following:

1. trial counsel did not object appropriately to testimony offered at trial;

2. trial counsel failed to obtain medical records for the victim; and

3. trial counsel failed to file a pretrial motion to exclude prejudicial testimony at

trial.

For the following reasons, the petition is denied.

FINDINGS

Trial counsel is an experienced trial lawyer and had tried many felony-level jury

trials prior to the petitioner's trial. Trial counsel was retained many months prior to trial and he and the petitioner met on a number of occasions. Trial counsel's theory of

the case was that the victim was a very young woman making very bad decisions. She

was seventeen or eighteen years old; she made decisions to smoke marijuana, use

cocaine, and take pills, which she did prior to meeting the petitioner; she made the

decision to have her photos taken; and she was not compelled by the petitioner to

engage in any of these activities.

There was an insufficient sample of cocaine to test prior to trial. Counsel did not

file a motion pursuant to 17-A M.R.S. § 1112. Trial counsel did file a motion in limine to

exclude the results of the field test of the residue on the digital scales, which was

granted without objection. Trial counsel concluded that the victim's credibility would

be affected negatively if she testified that the petitioner gave her cocaine when there

was no evidence of cocaine. He hoped that if the jury did not believe the victim about

the defendant's alleged furnishing cocaine, the jury would not believe her testimony

about furnishing marijuana.

The petitioner reported to trial counsel that petitioner believed the victim had a

history of mental health issues. Trial counsel did not obtain any records and none was

produced at the hearing on the petition. Trial counsel believed that a history of mental

health issues could compromise his strategy; he did not want the jury to conclude that

the petitioner had taken advantage of a mentally ill person.

The petitioner argues that his trial counsel should have objected to the following

testimony at trial: Transcript I: page 27, line 21; page 28, lines 11-24; page 29, lines 19

25; page 3D, lines 1-25; page 32, lines 16-24; page 33, lines 10-15; page 36, line 8; page 42,

lines 20-25; page 44, lines 1-9; page 88, line 21; page 100, lines 1-6 and 23-25. The victim

testified about the specific drugs she used with, and received from, the petitioner.

Special Agent Investigator Jonathan Richards, who has worked as a drug

2 agent/ investigator since 1981 and whose specialty is drug evidence, identified

marijuana, testified that digital scales are typically found when people are dealing in

powders such as cocaine, and testified that the white residue was consistent with

cocaine. Trial counsel did not want to inquire about the source of the victim's

knowledge regarding drugs because he feared she would testify that her knowledge

carne from the petitioner.

CONCLUSIONS

For trial issues, the petitioner must demonstrate that there has been serious

incompetency, inefficiency or inattention of counsel that falls below that which might

be expected from an ordinary fallible attorney and that the ineffective representation by

counsel has likely deprived the defendant of an otherwise available substantial ground

of defense. See State v. Brewer, 1997 ME 177, 'j[ 15-17, 699 A.2d 1139, 1143-44. "[T]he

test is applied on a case-by-case basis, and evaluations of ineffective assistance of

counsel claims are 'guided by the overall justness and fairness of the proceeding.'''

McGowan v. State, 2006 ME 16, 'j[ 12, 894 A.2d 493,497 (quoting Aldus v. State, 2000 ME

47,1114-15,748 A.2d 463, 468).

"Defense counsel owes a duty to the client to conduct a reasonable investigation."

Lagassee v. State, 655 A.2d 328, 329 (Me. 1995). That duty includes a duty to interview

witnesses who have information relevant to a case. See Doucette v. State, 463 A.2d 741,

745 (Me. 1983).

Heightened deference is accorded in reviewing strategic or tactical decisions by

trial counsel. See True v. State, 457 A.2d 793, 796 (Me. 1983). The question is whether

the strategy has been shown to be "manifestly unreasonable." Id.

3 Failure to Object

Neither the victim nor Special Agent Richards's testimony was inadmissible. See

State v. Bernard, 2001 ME 80, CJI 12, 772 A.2d 852, 857; State v. Pelletier, 636 A.2d 989, 990

(Me. 1994). The victim's testimony was consistent with trial counsel's strategy, which

was not "manifestly unreasonable."

Medical Records

There is no evidence on this record regarding what the medical record may have

contained. See Whitmore v. State, 670 A.2d 394, 396-97 (Me. 1996) (records trial counsel

failed to obtain were subject of testimony at the post-conviction review hearing);

Lagassee, 655 A.2d at 330 (post-conviction review attorney obtained medical record that

supported alibi). Further, trial counsel's reasonable strategy involved not emphasizing

the victim's mental health problems.

17-A M.R.S. § 1112

Section 1112 provides that if an analysis of drugs is performed, a certificate

stating the results of the analysis is admissible unless the "the defendant requests that a

qualified witness testify as to the composition, quality and quantity." 17-A M.R.S. §

1112(1). There was no analysis of the cocaine performed in this case.

The entry is

The Petition for Post-Conviction Review is DENIED.

Date: May 7, 2009 Nancy Mills Justice, Superior Court

4 RONALD A GONYOU JR SUPERIOR COURT vs KENNEBEC, ss. STJ:,TE OF MAINE Docket No AUGSC-CR-2007-00063

DOCKET RECORD

PL. DOB: 01/25/1973 PL. ATTY: DAVID PARIS State's Attorney: EVERT FOWLE 72 FRONT STREET BATH ME 04530-2657 APPOINTED 01/30/2007

Filing Document: PETITION Major Case Type: POST CONVICTION REVIEW Filing Date: 01/18/2007

Charge{s)

Docket Events:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI