Skip to content
Name: Lambright v. Stewart
Case #: 96-99020
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 03/06/2001
Subsequent History: None

The district court had rejected a habeas claim of ineffective assistance on the ground that petitioner had failed to raise it on direct appeal, which was an independent state ground for rejecting the claim. The Court of Appeals held that the rule requiring the issue be raised on appeal did not bar federal habeas relief because it was so unclear that it did not provide petitioner with a fair opportunity to seek relief in state court. No Arizona case at the time required ineffective assistance claims be raised on direct appeal. Additionally, the state court order did not…

View Full Summary
Name: Mendez v. Superior Court
Case #: B145701
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 03/07/2001
Subsequent History: Modif. of opn. at 88 Cal.App.4th 238f; rev. den. 5/23/01

Petitioner had pleaded guilty after Officer Mack testified at the preliminary hearing that petitioner had sold drugs to Mack. Years later, Officer Mack pleaded guilty to bank robbery and was tangentially related to the Rampart scandal. Since petitioner was no longer on parole, habeas corpus was not available to him. He filed a petition for coram nobis, alleging he was innocent and that his arrest and conviction were based solely on the credibility of Officer Mack. Absent extrinsic fraud or duress, a judgment predicated on perjured testimony cannot be attacked by a petition for a writ…

View Full Summary
Name: Petrocelli v. Angelone
Case #: 97-99029
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 03/07/2001
Subsequent History: None

The Court of Appeals held the district court erred in dismissing a habeas petition alleging certain grounds because the claims had not been presented in an earlier petition in the district court, which had been dismissed without prejudice for exhaustion in state court. Under Slack v. McDaniel (2000) 529 U.S. 473, such an amended petition is not a "second or successive petition" for purposes of the writ. Each of the grounds also alleged a violation of constitutional rights (ineffective assistance, due process, and Eighth Amendment rights). Twelve other grounds for relief had been rejected on the basis of…

View Full Summary
Name: Petrocelli v. Angelone
Case #: 97-99029
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 03/07/2001
Subsequent History: None

The Court of Appeals held the district court erred in dismissing a habeas petition alleging certain grounds because the claims had not been presented in an earlier petition in the district court, which had been dismissed without prejudice for exhaustion in state court. Under Slack v. McDaniel (2000) 529 U.S. 473, such an amended petition is not a "second or successive petition" for purposes of the writ. Each of the grounds also alleged a violation of constitutional rights (ineffective assistance, due process, and Eighth Amendment rights). Twelve other grounds for relief had been rejected on the basis of…

View Full Summary
Name: Bragg v. Galaza
Case #: 99-16636
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 03/12/2001
Subsequent History: Amended opn. 253 F.3d 1150

Although there were "unanswered questions," remand for an evidentiary hearing was barred by AEDPA because Bragg failed to develop the factual basis of the claim in state court…

View Full Summary
Name: Bunney v. Mitchell
Case #: 00-15432
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 03/05/2001
Subsequent History: Opn withdrawn by the Court 5/10/01, new opn 8/28/01 issued at 262 F.3d 973

Editor's note: see subsequent history A petition of habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to investigate or present evidence of battered women's syndrome was filed more than one year after the effective date of AEDPA (3/24/96). The defendant was convicted in 1982, and retained counsel reviewed her file for a parole hearing. A psychotherapist opined at her March 1996 parole hearing that she suffered from BWS at the time of the killing. The Court concluded the petition was untimely. It rejected her claim that she was not aware of the "factual predicate" of…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Azurin
Case #: D034571
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 02/14/2001
Subsequent History: rev. den. 5/2/01

The appellate court here reversed an order granting a habeas petition permitting appellant to withdraw his plea of guilty to discharging a firearm at an occupied motor vehicle. Appellant was not properly advised by counsel that deportation proceedings would likely be initiated against him as a result of the plea. Several years after completing parole, the INS instituted deportation proceedings. Although the hazard of deportation was real, appellant did not meet the burden of proving that he was in constructive custody of California. Therefore, his habeas petition did not meet the habeas jurisdictional requirements of California…

View Full Summary
Name: Depetris v. Kuykendall
Case #: 99-56126
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 01/26/2001
Subsequent History: None

The California Court of Appeal found that the trial court erred in finding inadmissible evidence consisting of the deceased's journal, and petitioner's testimony regarding the effect reading it had on her. Here, petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and use of a firearm. Petitioner had relied on imperfect self-defense. The deceased was her husband, and his journal recounted his acts of abuse and violence against his homosexual companion, his stepdaughter, his rape of a friend's girlfriend, and numerous beatings inflicted on his first wife. Because the Court of Appeal's finding regarding the admissibility of this…

View Full Summary
Name: Hoffman v. Arave
Case #: 99-99002
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 01/03/2001
Subsequent History: None

Because Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. — [147 L.Ed.2d 435, 120 S.Ct. 2348], did not overrule Walton v. Arizona (1990) 497 U.S. 639, it was not error for the district judge, rather than the jury, to determine the aggravating circumstances in a capital case. A presentence interview in a capital case is a "critical stage" for Sixth Amendment purposes, to which the right to counsel attaches, and this is not a new rule within the meaning of Teague v. Lane (1989) 489 U.S. 288. The Court of Appeals could not determine, on this record, whether the…

View Full Summary
Name: Jorss v. Gomez
Case #: 99-16986
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 09/04/2001
Subsequent History: None

The federal district court’s erroneous dismissal of defendant’s habeas petition as unexhausted was an extraordinary circumstance beyond his control warranting equitable tolling, so that his habeas petition was timely under AEDPA. (2-1…

View Full Summary