Paw Paw native faces execution Friday; Received death sentence in North Carolina for murder of 90-year-old

November 11, 2004

RALEIGH, N.C. -- The sun has risen and set more than 4,000 times over Central Prison since Frank Chandler was brought there July 20, 1993, as a death row prisoner. Unless Gov. Mike Easley grants clemency today, the 32-year-old, who was born in Paw Paw, Mich., will not see another sunrise.

Chandler is scheduled to be executed by injection at 2 a.m. Friday. He was sentenced to death for the Dec. 12, 1992, murder of Doris Poore, a 90-year-old woman whom Chandler said he killed by accident when she startled him in the darkness during a burglary of her Surry County, N.C., home.

Last Sunday, Chandler received a surprise visit from three of his half sisters, who drove to Raleigh from Michigan. Evelyn Elkins and Rhonda Starrett, both of Dowagiac, and Julie Aguilar of Covert, saw Chandler for the first time since he was sentenced to death. "I'm really trusting in God for a miracle," Elkins said. "I am hopeful."

On Monday morning, Chandler came to the maximum-security prison's visiting room to talk about his plight. Chandler, who stands 5-foot 9-inches tall and weighs about 300 pounds, is a large man, who resembles television's Beaver Cleaver.

Despite his appearance, in his trial 11 years ago prosecutors presented him as menacing killer. Chandler wears his blondish-red hair in a crew cut. His hairline is slightly receded and his huge arms have several visible tattoos, including a well-drawn barbed wire bracelet on his left wrist, which Chandler said he did himself. "I've pretty much, you know, grown used to the idea that I'll die here," he said.

Ken Rose, executive director of the North Carolina Center for Death Penalty Litigation, a Durham, N.C.-based group that handles legal appeals in capital cases, said he remains hopeful that Easley will spare Chandler's life. "This is a very strong clemency case," Rose said.

Chandler's defense attorney at trial, Terry Collins, now disbarred, allegedly had previously used illegal drugs with the state's key witness, jailhouse informant, Jeffrey Kyle Wilson, who once shared a cell with Chandler. Wilson provided testimony that led to Chandler receiving a death sentence. In exchange for his testimony, Wilson was given relief in his own case and paid a reward from the state, information that was not shared with the jury.

In 1995, the district attorney who prosecuted Chandler, James Dellinger, was removed from office because of improprieties in office, a fact defense attorneys said "strengthens the claim that Mr. Chandler's conviction resulted from prosecutorial misconduct."

Chandler said he moved with his family to Mount Airy, N.C. when he was in sixth grade. Mount Airy, the home town of actor Andy Griffith, was used as a model for the fictitious Mayberry of "The Andy Griffith Show." "I'm regretful that it happened," Chandler said. "I'm very sorry. I'm sorry for the loss for the family members. I've caused them a lot of pain. It's something I wish I had never done, but it's not something that you can take back."

Chandler, the youngest of Franklin and Lorene Chandler's 12 children, said he is being treated well by his fellow inmates on "the row" and by prison staff. In the last week, Chandler has received visits from seven of his sisters. Six drove and another took the bus to Raleigh from Michigan. He will be permitted his first contact visits with family members today. None of his family members plans to witness the execution.

Aguilar said many people are praying her brother's life is spared. Spending more than 11 years on death row may be terrible, but Chandler said he decided to make the best of it when he got there. To pass the time Chandler said he does "a whole lot of reading," everything from religion and history to fiction.

Pardon possible for Chandler

November 11, 2004

Attorneys for convicted murderer Frank Chandler want mercy for their client and are citing conflicts of interest and misapplication of the law as just some of the reasons why he should live.

Chandler is scheduled to die Friday, but supporters, including his counsel and a former State Supreme Court justice, visited Gov. Mike Easley last week seeking clemency for the 32-year-old. The trio says that the murder was accidental and that therefore Chandler should not be killed.

"(Easley) was very interested and engaged in the arguments given," said Robert Orr, the former justice. "He obviously takes it seriously, as well he should."

Chandler's counsel - assistant capital defender Mark Rabil and attorney J. Clark Fischer - has written a letter to Easley explaining its rationale. "This was an 'accidental' murder committed during the course of a felony, a break-in," the letter stated. Rabil said in an interview that the 90-year-old victim, Doris Poore, came upon Chandler in her house and screamed. A surprised Chandler swung his arm and hit Poore in the head, killing her.

The jury did not find that Chandler had acted with premeditation, the main requirement for first-degree murder. But the prosecution claimed that he was seeking "pecuniary gain," one of many aggravating factors in a murder case that makes one eligible for the death penalty.

The star witness for the prosecution, Chandler's cellmate Jeffrey Wilson, provided the testimony regarding the aggravating factor.

He said Chandler searched for the woman's purse after hitting her, thus giving the prosecution all it needed to seek the ultimate punishment. But Chandler did not find a purse and therefore did not gain from his crime.

Questions also have arisen regarding the star witness and his relationship with Chandler's defense attorney, Terry Collins. Collins was disbarred in 1998 after pleading guilty to felony forgery charges. Controversy surrounds the prosecution as well, Rabil said. "The (district attorney) who prosecuted this case was removed from office two years after this case," he said. "Every lawyer in this case is unsavory."

Orr, who reviewed Chandler's case at the state Supreme Court level, said he did not focus on these aspects. He was the lone dissenter among the seven justices. He said Chandler should not be executed because the aggravating factor did not apply in this case. "If there wasn't an aggravator, it is an automatic life sentence," he said. "And this was the only aggravator submitted to the jury."

Neither Easley's office nor the state attorney general's office could be reached for comment.

State v. Chandler, 467 S.E.2d 636 (N.C. 1996) (Direct Appeal).

Defendant was convicted by jury in the Superior Court, Surry County, William H. Freeman, J., of first-degree murder under felony-murder rule, with first-degree burglary as underlying felony. Defendant appealed as of right. The Supreme Court, Mitchell, C.J., held that: (1) defendant was not entitled to conduct voir dire regarding prospective jurors' beliefs about parole eligibility; (2) erroneous inclusion of phrase "attempted larceny" in original burglary instruction was not plain error; (3) conviction for first-degree murder based on underlying felony of burglary was without error despite erroneous inclusion of "attempted larceny" in original jury instruction on burglary; (4) evidence was sufficient to support finding of pecuniary gain aggravating circumstance; (5) evidence did not support jury instruction on mitigating circumstance of mental or emotional disturbance; (6) trial court did not err by not intervening during prosecutors' closing arguments to jury during capital sentencing proceedings; and (7) sentence of death was not disproportionate. Affirmed. Orr, J., filed dissenting opinion.

MITCHELL, Chief Justice.

This case arises out of the death of Doris Poore, a ninety-year-old widow who was killed during a burglary of her home on 11 December 1992.

Defendant was indicted for first-degree murder, first-degree burglary, attempted larceny, attempted first-degree rape, and attempted first-degree sexual offense. He was tried before a jury, which found him guilty of the first-degree murder of Doris Poore under the felony murder rule, with first-degree burglary as the underlying felony.

The jury also found him guilty of attempted larceny, but not guilty of attempted first-degree rape or first- degree sexual offense. After a separate capital sentencing proceeding, the jury recommended and the trial court imposed a sentence of death for the first-degree murder conviction and a three-year prison sentence for the attempted larceny conviction.

The State presented evidence at trial tending to show that on 10 December 1992, Mrs. Poore talked by telephone with Grace Vaughn, a friend, until approximately 10:30 p.m. The next day at 8:00 a.m., Lea Quiros, the victim's housekeeper, arrived at Mrs. Poore's house and knocked on the front door. When Mrs. Poore did not answer the door, Mrs. Quiros attempted to call her on the telephone. Again, no one answered. Mrs. Quiros contacted Mr. Jack Leach, Mrs. Poore's son-in-law, who, on arrival, entered the house by the back door. Mr. Leach let Mrs. Quiros in the house. Mr. Leach found Mrs. Poore dead in her bed in a pool of blood.

Special Agent R.D. Melton of the SBI testified that during the investigation of Mrs. Poore's death, he observed that the screen door at the back of her house had been cut with two "L"-shaped cuts above the center support strut on the right side of the door where a latch was located. The screen was slightly pushed in. The wooden door was open, and the screws from the chain lock were pulled from the wall and left hanging on the door.

After entering Mrs. Poore's house, Melton found Mrs. Poore's glasses and hearing aids on the dining room table. Upon entering Mrs. Poore's bedroom, he found bed clothing on the bed, a sheet pulled up over the victim, and an area of pooled blood underneath her head.

The victim was lying on the bed with her pajama top open and her body was nude from the waist down; smeared bloody fingerprints were on her abdomen. A pair of pajama bottoms and a pair of panties were wadded together at the foot of the bed between the victim's legs, but slightly beneath her right foot. He also noted that an electric heating pad was on the bed.

Dr. Gregory James Davis, a forensic pathologist, testified that Mrs. Poore died from a single "massive blow" to the head. The blow resulted in a hinge fracture to the scalp, which effectively caused the skull to snap in two resulting in extensive swelling and hemorrhaging of the brain. Mrs. Poore had numerous abrasions, lacerations, and bruises. Special Agent Ricky Navarro, a latent evidence specialist with the SBI, testified that palm and fingerprints matching the defendant's were found on the wooden door leading into the kitchen.

Special Agent J.L. Eddins testified that after he took defendant's fingerprints, he asked defendant to sign a consent to search form. Defendant signed the fingerprint card, but refused to sign the other related documents. After defendant asked to make a phone call, he proceeded to destroy all of the documents and the card.

Jeffrey Kyle Wilson, defendant's cellmate from January 1993 until April 1993, testified that while defendant was in jail, defendant asked him what he should do. Wilson told him to tell the truth so that he would not get the electric chair. Wilson said that defendant replied that "they" did not have the evidence to convict him. Then, defendant described how he had committed the murder and that as a defense, he planned to "play crazy."

Defendant took the stand as the only defense witness and testified that he left his aunt's house between midnight and 12:30 a.m. on 11 December 1992 and walked to the victim's house. After knocking on the window, back door, and garage door, and not getting an answer, he entered the house through the unlocked basement door. He proceeded up the stairs, cut the screen door with a pocketknife, and opened the back door leading to the kitchen.

He testified that as he started to walk through the house, he saw something out of the corner of his eye. When he started to leave, somebody behind him screamed. He then turned and swung, making the victim fall against him. He testified that as Mrs. Poore was falling, he caught her; he then carried her to her bed, put her in the bed, and went to the bathroom to wash the blood off his hand. He saw Mrs. Poore's clothes at the front of the toilet, picked them up, put them next to her in her bed, and covered her up.

Defendant testified that he had not known who lived in the house, but thought that a man lived there because he had seen a blue pickup truck parked in front of the house before and had seen a man smoking "reefer" or marijuana there. Defendant testified that after he left the house, he washed his clothes and that he still had them. On cross-examination, defendant testified that after he killed Mrs. Poore, he did not look for the marijuana as he had originally planned.

* * * *

Under North Carolina's system for administering capital punishment as mandated by our legislature, the appropriateness of the sentence of death is for the jury to decide. N.C.G.S. § 15A-2000 (1988). Although this Court is required to conduct the function of proportionality review, we are not authorized to substitute our own notions as to the appropriateness of the penalty of death in a given case for those of the jury.

Therefore, only in the most clear and extraordinary situations may we properly declare a sentence of death which has been recommended by the jury and ordered by the trial court to be disproportionate. See generally State v. Williams, 308 N.C. 47, 301 S.E.2d 335, cert. denied, 464 U.S. 865, 104 S.Ct. 202, 78 L.Ed.2d 177 (1983). This is not such a case. Accordingly, we conclude that the sentence of death recommended by the jury and ordered by the trial court in the present case is not disproportionate.

For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the defendant received a fair trial, free of prejudicial error, and that the sentence of death entered in the present case must be and is left undisturbed. NO ERROR.

ORR, Justice, dissenting. I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion on two grounds. First, the trial court erred in submitting the (e)(6) aggravating circumstance--that the capital felony was committed for pecuniary gain, N.C.G.S. § 15A-2000(e)(6) (Supp.1995)--and second, the death sentence is disproportionate.

Chandler v. Lee, 89 Fed.Appx. 830 (4th Cir. 2004). (Habeas).

Background: After defendant's conviction of first-degree murder and imposition of the death sentence were affirmed, 342 N.C. 742, 467 S.E.2d 636, and postconviction relief was denied, petitioner sought writ of habeas corpus. Adopting report and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Russell A. Eliason, the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, 252 F.Supp.2d 219, N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief Judge, denied petition, and defendant appealed.

Holdings: The Court of Appeals, William W. Wilkins, Circuit Judge, held that:
(1) state court's ruling that prosecution did not knowingly allow witness to testify falsely was entitled to deference;
(2) state's failure to disclose allegedly exculpatory evidence did not violate Brady;
(3) prior representation by defense co-counsel of key prosecution witness did not result in conflict of interest; and
(4) failure to submit statutory mitigating circumstance instruction did not violate defendant's constitutional rights. Affirmed.

Frank Ray Chandler appeals an order of the district court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, see 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2003), in which he challenged his conviction and death sentence for the murder of 90-year-old Doris Poore. Finding no error, we affirm.

Poore's body was found on the morning of December 11, 1992. She was lying on her bed with a pool of blood underneath and around her head. Although a sheet had been pulled over Poore, her pajama top was open and she was naked from the waist down; her underwear and pajama bottoms were wadded together near her feet. There were smeared bloody fingerprints on her abdomen. A subsequent autopsy revealed that Poore was killed by a single, massive blow to the head.

At trial, Chandler was linked to the crime by circumstantial evidence. Chandler's palm and fingerprints were found on the door leading into Poore's kitchen. Chandler's cousin, with whom Chandler spent the night of December 10-11, testified that Chandler had left the house for a time late at night; subsequently, Chandler asked his cousin not to tell anyone he had left the house.

The prosecution also presented the testimony of Jeffrey Kyle Wilson, who was Chandler's cellmate for several months following Chandler's arrest. Wilson testified that Chandler described the murder to him. According to Wilson, Chandler stated that he broke into the house and encountered Poore in the kitchen. He struck her on the head and, not realizing that he had killed her, laid her on the bed. When Wilson asked Chandler why Poore was naked from the waist down (information he had learned from the newspaper), Chandler responded that "he had never seen no old p* * *y." Trial Tr., Vol. V, at 614.

On direct and cross-examination, Wilson repeatedly denied having sought or been offered any benefit in exchange for his testimony, despite the fact that he had several pending charges. Wilson did acknowledge that one of the investigating officers appeared on his behalf at a parole revocation hearing that took place four days after Wilson's initial contact with police regarding Chandler. Wilson's parole was nevertheless revoked.

Chandler testified in his own defense, claiming that he broke into Poore's house because he believed he could find marijuana there. After knocking on a window, the garage door, and the back door, Chandler entered the house through the basement door and proceeded upstairs to the kitchen. Chandler testified that he saw something out of the corner of his eye and had turned to leave when someone behind him screamed.

He swung his left arm as he turned around, striking Poore, who fell against him. Chandler stated that he carried Poore to her bed and then went into the bathroom to wash his hands; he found Poore's pajama bottoms and underwear near the toilet and placed them in the bed with her before he left.

A jury convicted Chandler of first-degree murder, first-degree burglary, and attempted larceny. [FN2] Following a capital sentencing hearing, the jury recommended, and the trial judge imposed, a sentence of death for the murder conviction. The convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. See State v. Chandler, 342 N.C. 742, 467 S.E.2d 636, cert. denied, 519 U.S. 875, 117 S.Ct. 196, 136 L.Ed.2d 133 (1996). As is relevant here, the North Carolina Supreme Court rejected Chandler's claim that the trial court erred in refusing to submit a particular statutory mitigating circumstance to the jury. See id. at 644-45.

FN2. The jury acquitted Chandler of attempted first-degree rape and attempted first-degree sexual offense.

Chandler thereafter filed a motion for appropriate relief (MAR), which was assigned to the same judge who had presided over Chandler's trial. Chandler claimed, inter alia, that (1) the prosecution had knowingly allowed Wilson to testify falsely, (2) the prosecution failed to disclose evidence that would have impeached Wilson's testimony, and (3) one of his attorneys had previously represented Wilson, and thus was laboring under a conflict of interest in violation of Chandler's Sixth Amendment rights. After conducting a hearing that included the presentation of evidence, the MAR court denied relief.

Chandler filed this federal habeas action on August 12, 1999, raising the claims described above and one additional claim. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge, who recommended that the petition be dismissed. After considering Chandler's objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation, the district court denied relief. See Chandler v. French, 252 F.Supp.2d 219, 224 (M.D.N.C.2003) (adopting recommendations of magistrate judge).

We subsequently granted a certificate of appealability, see 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253(c) (West Supp.2003); 4th Cir. R. 22(a), as to the following issues: (1) whether the prosecution knowingly allowed Wilson to testify falsely; (2) whether the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence concerning Wilson's testimony; (3) whether an actual conflict of interest adversely affected the performance of one of Chandler's attorneys; and (4) whether the refusal to submit a particular mitigating circumstance to the jury violated Chandler's constitutional rights. We denied a certificate of appealability as to Chandler's claim that the trial court provided the jury an unconstitutionally restrictive definition of mitigating evidence.

Because Chandler's claims were adjudicated on their merits by the state courts of North Carolina, our review is limited to determining whether the decision of that court "was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court." 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(d)(1). A state court decision is "contrary to" Supreme Court precedent in either of two situations: (1) when "the state court applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in [Supreme Court] cases," or (2) when "the state court confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of [the Supreme] Court and nevertheless arrives at a result different from [the Court's] precedent." Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405-06, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000).

A state court decision rests on an "unreasonable application" of clearly established Supreme Court precedent when "the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from [the] Court's decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner's case." Id. at 413.

* * * *

For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that the district court correctly denied Chandler's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We therefore affirm.

Chandler v. French, 252 F.Supp.2d 219 (M.D.N.C. 2003). (Habeas)

After his convictions of first-degree murder under felony murder rule and death sentence were affirmed, 342 N.C. 742, 467 S.E.2d 636, and postconviction relief was denied, petitioner sought writ of habeas corpus. Defendant filed objections to magistrate's report. Adopting report and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Eliason, the District Court, Tilley, Chief Judge, held that: (1) prosecutors did not commit Giglio violation in presenting testimony of jailhouse informer; (2) no Brady violation was shown; (3) actual conflict of interest was not shown as result of defense co-counsel's prior representation of jailhouse informer; (4) failure to submit statutory mitigating circumstance did not violate defendant's Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights; and (5) instruction on mitigating evidence was not contrary to or unreasonable application of federal precedent. Writ denied.

This matter is now before the Court on Frank Ray Chandler's Petition for Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In a thorough and carefully reasoned opinion, the United States Magistrate Judge recommended that the petition be denied. Petitioner has objected to the Recommendation on several grounds and this opinion addresses those issues. For the reasons set forth below, the Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge are ADOPTED, and the Petition is DENIED.

The facts, as stated by the North Carolina Supreme Court and to which there is no present dispute, are as follows: This case arises out of the death of Doris Poore, a ninety-year-old widow who was killed during a burglary of her home on 11 December 1992. Defendant was indicted for first-degree murder, first-degree burglary, attempted larceny, attempted first-degree rape, and attempted first-degree sexual offense.

He was tried before a jury, which found him guilty of the first-degree murder of Doris Poore under the felony murder rule, with first degree burglary as the underlying felony. The jury also found him guilty of attempted larceny, but not guilty of attempted first-degree rape or first-degree sexual offense. After a separate capital sentencing proceeding, the jury recommended and the trial court imposed a sentence of death for the first-degree murder conviction and a three-year prison sentence for the attempted larceny conviction.

The State presented evidence at trial tending to show that on 10 December 1992, Mrs. Poore talked by telephone with Grace Vaughn, a friend, until approximately 10:30 p.m. The next day at 8:00 a.m., Lea Quiros, the victim's housekeeper, arrived at Mrs. Poore's house and knocked on the front door. When Mrs. Poore did not answer the door, Mrs. Quiros attempted to call her on the telephone. Again, no one answered. Mrs. Quiros contacted Mr. Jack Leach, Mrs. Poore's son-in-law, who, on arrival, entered the house by the back door. Mr. Leach let Mrs. Quiros in the house. Mr. Leach found Mrs. Poore dead in her bed in a pool of blood.

Special Agent R.D. Melton of the SBI testified that during the investigation of Mrs. Poore's death, he observed that the screen door at the back of her house had been cut with two "L"-shaped cuts above the center support strut on the right side of the door where a latch was located. The screen was slightly pushed in. The wooden door was open, and the screws from the chain lock were pulled from the wall and left hanging on the door.

After entering Mrs. Poore's house, Melton found Mrs. Poore's glasses and hearing aids on the dining room table. Upon entering Mrs. Poore's bedroom, he found bed clothing on the bed, a sheet pulled up over the victim, and an area of pooled blood underneath her head. The victim was lying on the bed with her pajama top open and her body was nude from the waist down; smeared bloody fingerprints were on her abdomen. A pair of pajama bottoms and a pair of panties were wadded together at the foot of the bed between the victim's legs, but slightly beneath her right foot. He also noted that an electric heating pad was on the bed.

Dr. Gregory James Davis, a forensic pathologist, testified that Mrs. Poore died from a single "massive blow" to the head. The blow resulted in a hinge fracture to the scalp, which effectively caused the skull to snap in two resulting in extensive swelling and hemorrhaging of the brain. Mrs. Poore had numerous abrasions, lacerations, and bruises.

Special Agent Ricky Navarro, a latent evidence specialist with the SBI, testified that palm and fingerprints matching the defendant's were found on the wooden door leading into the kitchen. Special Agent J.L. Eddins testified that after he took defendant's fingerprints, he asked defendant to sign a consent to search form. Defendant signed the fingerprint card, but refused to sign the other related documents. After defendant asked to make a phone call, he proceeded to destroy all of the documents and the card.

Jeffrey Kyle Wilson, defendant's cellmate from January 1993 until April 1993, testified that while defendant was in jail, defendant asked him what he should do. Wilson told him to tell the truth so that he would not get the electric chair. Wilson said that defendant replied that "they" did not have the evidence to convict him. Then, defendant described how he had committed the murder and that as a defense, he planned to "play crazy."

Defendant took the stand as the only defense witness and testified that he left his aunt's house between midnight and 12:30 a.m. on 11 December 1992 and walked to the victim's house. After knocking on the window, back door, and garage door, and not getting an answer, he entered the house through the unlocked basement door. He proceeded up the stairs, cut the screen door with a pocketknife, and opened the back door leading to the kitchen. He testified that as he started to walk through the house, he saw something out of the corner of his eye.

When he started to leave, somebody behind him screamed. He then turned and swung, making the victim fall against him. He testified that as Mrs. Poore was falling, he caught her; he then carried her to her bed, put her in the bed, and went to the bathroom to wash the blood off his hand. He saw Mrs. Poore's clothes at the front of the toilet, picked them up, put them next to her in her bed, and covered her up.

Defendant testified that he had not known who lived in the house, but thought that a man lived there because he had seen a blue pickup truck parked in front of the house before and had seen a man smoking "reefer" or marijuana there. Defendant testified that after he left the house, he washed his clothes and that he still had them. On cross-examination, defendant testified that after he killed Mrs. Poore, he did not look for the marijuana as he had originally planned. State v. Chandler, 342 N.C. 742, 747-50, 467 S.E.2d at 639-41.

Petitioner was indicted on March 8, 1993 for first degree murder, first degree burglary, attempted larceny, attempted first degree rape, and attempted first degree sexual offense. Petitioner was tried in Surry County and, on July 16, 1993, was convicted of first degree burglary, attempted larceny and first degree murder under the felony murder rule, with first degree burglary as the underlying felony. He was found not guilty of the attempted rape and attempted sexual offense charges in the indictment.

At the sentencing phase, the jury found pecuniary gain to be the sole aggravating factor. It found three mitigating factors: (1) Petitioner's lack of proper parental role models during his formative years; (2) his history of alcohol and drug abuse; and (3) his acknowledgment that he had killed Mrs. Poore. The jury recommended that Petitioner be sentenced to death. The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed Petitioner's conviction and sentence on March 8, 1996. State v. Chandler, 342 N.C. 742, 467 S.E.2d 636 (1996). The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari on October 7, 1996. Chandler v. North Carolina, 519 U.S. 875, 117 S.Ct. 196, 136 L.Ed.2d 133 (1996).

Petitioner filed a Motion for Appropriate Relief, which was heard in the Surry County Superior Court on April 6 and April 9, 1998. The Honorable William Freeman denied the Motion for Appropriate Relief on October 14, 1998. ("MAR court"). The North Carolina Supreme Court denied certiorari to review Judge Freeman's ruling on the Motion for Appropriate Relief on July 23, 1999. State v. Chandler, 350 N.C. 838, 538 S.E.2d 572 (1999) .

A Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina on October 20, 1999. The Magistrate Judge reviewed the Petition for Habeas Corpus and made the following recommendations on June 12, 2001:(1) the prosecution did not fail to disclose impeachment evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland; (2) the prosecution did not present perjured testimony in violation of Giglio v. United States; (3) Petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was not violated due to a conflict of interest; and (4) the jury instructions regarding mitigating circumstances and the definition of mitigation were not erroneous. Petitioner filed Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendations on July 16, 2001. Each of these objections will be addressed separately.