EARNEST PRESCOTT V. KELLY SANTORO ( 2022 )

FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 15 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EARNEST L. PRESCOTT, No. 19-17509
Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:16-cv-01359-EJD
v.
OPINION
KELLY SANTORO, Acting Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 17, 2022
San Francisco, California
Before: Jay S. Bybee, Consuelo M. Callahan, and Daniel P. Collins, Circuit
Judges.
Opinion by Judge Callahan;
Concurrence by Judge Collins
SUMMARY *
Habeas Corpus
The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of Earnest Prescott’s 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his California murder conviction, in a
case in which the district court issued a certificate of appealability as to Prescott’s
claims that (1) letters allegedly written by Prescott’s codefendant, Jason Jones,
established that he was innocent; and (2) his trial attorney provided ineffective
assistance of counsel by failing to have the letters authenticated and introduced into
evidence.
The California Court of Appeal summarily denied Prescott’s habeas petition, and
the California Supreme Court denied Prescott’s petition for review.
The panel applied the standards set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
Prescott, who conceded that 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) does not apply, argued that
the state court made an unreasonable determination of facts under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d)(2) by rejecting his claim of actual innocence. The panel held that Prescott
did not waive his actual innocence argument in his briefing to the district
court. Turning to the merits, the panel wrote that Prescott cannot challenge the
substance of the state courts’ factual findings because the state courts made no
factual findings. In the absence of substantive factual findings by the state courts,
Prescott contended that the state courts’ factfinding process was unreasonable
because no court could have reasonably found that Prescott’s allegations failed to
establish a prima facie case of actual innocence. He argued that the summary denial
was necessarily and implicitly based on a factual determination that Jones’s
confession was not credible, and that the state court could not reasonably make this
finding without first holding an evidentiary hearing. The panel held that the state
court’s decision not to make specific factual findings did not constitute an
unreasonable factfinding procedure under § 2254(d)(2), and the state court’s
decision not to conduct an evidentiary hearing in service of an unnecessary
*
This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been
prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
credibility determination was likewise not unreasonable.
The panel wrote that even if Prescott could show that the state court made an
unreasonable determination of fact under § 2254(d)(2) and obtain de novo review of
his freestanding actual innocence claim, he would need to demonstrate such a claim
is cognizable in a federal habeas proceeding in the non-capital context. The panel
noted that this is an open question, but that the panel need not resolve it here because
Prescott’s new evidence does not meet the extraordinarily high threshold showing
of actual innocence that would be necessary to prevail on such a claim.
The panel held that it was not unreasonable for the California Court of Appeal to
reject Prescott’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim concerning the authenticity
of the letters. The panel wrote that a retired handwriting expert’s 30 years of
experience and expert testimony in over 300 cases was a sufficient and reasonable
basis for the state court to have found that the expert was qualified, or least that
Prescott’s attorney did not act deficiently in believing the expert to be qualified and
relying on his report that he could not reach a conclusion about whether the letters
were written by Jones.
Judge Collins concurred in the court’s opinion, except as to the section that
addresses a freestanding federal actual innocence claim, an issue that is unnecessary
to decide.
COUNSEL
Elizabeth Richardson-Royer (argued), San Francisco, California, for Petitioner-
Appellant.
Jill M. Thayer (argued) and Allan Yannow, Deputy Attorney Generals; Peggy S.
Ruffra, Supervising Deputy Attorney General; Jeffrey M. Laurence, Senior Assistant
Attorney General; Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General; Rob Bonta,
Attorney General of California; Office of the California Attorney General, San
Francisco, California; for Respondent-Appellee.
CALLAHAN, Circuit Judge:
Earnest Prescott was convicted of the murder of James Johnson in 2012.
Following his conviction, he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in state court
arguing that two letters allegedly written by his codefendant, Jason Jones,
exonerated Prescott. Prescott asserted, among other things, that (1) the letters
established that he was innocent, and (2) his trial attorney provided ineffective
assistance of counsel by failing to have the letters authenticated and introduced
into evidence.
After the California Court of Appeal summarily denied his petition and the
California Supreme Court denied review, Prescott filed a habeas petition in federal
court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court denied the petition, but granted a
certificate of appealability on Prescott’s actual innocence and ineffective assistance
of counsel claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and
we affirm.
I
A
On June 6, 2010, Prescott—who was then 16 years old—was riding in a
vehicle with Laquisha Williams, Jones, and several other individuals associated
with the “Ghost Town” gang in Oakland.1 While the car was driving through the
territory of a rival group known as the “Acorn” gang, Jones thought he saw an
Acorn gang member with whom he had fought while they were both previously
incarcerated. The car stopped, and Prescott and Jones exited the vehicle and
entered a nearby housing complex in pursuit. They ran into James Johnson—not
the gang member that Jones thought he had seen—as Johnson was walking from
his home in the housing complex to the store. Johnson was shot multiple times,
and Prescott and Jones fled back to their vehicle. Johnson later died from his
wounds.
A resident of the housing complex named Mignon Perry witnessed the
shooting. Perry said she made eye contact with the shooter, whom she described to
police as an African American male between the ages of 16 and 18 years old, 6 feet
and 1 inch tall, wearing a white T-shirt and blue jeans, and carrying a silver
handgun. Perry, who was acquainted with Williams, later heard that Williams may
have been involved in the incident and looked up her MySpace page online. On
the MySpace page, Perry saw a picture of Williams together with Prescott and
recognized Prescott as the shooter.
1
These facts are drawn from the California Court of Appeal’s opinion on direct
appeal following Prescott’s trial. People v. Prescott, No. A135991, 2015 WL
1736223, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2015), as modified on denial of reh’g (May
11, 2015); see also Hernandez v. Small, 282 F.3d 1132, 1135 n.1 (9th Cir. 2002)
(state court’s determination of facts is presumptively accurate).
2
Williams initially told police that she had seen Prescott return to the vehicle
with a gun that matched Perry’s description of the weapon, though at trial she
recanted that statement. Police ultimately found the gun in the possession of
another individual named Nickie Donald while investigating a different shooting.
Prescott was listed as a contact in Donald’s phone.
While awaiting trial, Prescott temporarily escaped from the juvenile facility
where he was being detained. After his escape, law enforcement officers found
two handwritten notes in his cell in which he admitted to “taking a human being
life,” and asked for forgiveness and a not guilty verdict.
Prescott and Jones were tried together for Johnson’s death in 2012. A jury
found Prescott guilty of murder and discharging a firearm causing death. The
court subsequently sentenced Prescott to an aggregate term of 50 years to life,
consisting of two consecutive terms of 25 years to life, one for the murder and one
for the firearm enhancement.2 Jones was acquitted.
The California Court of Appeal affirmed Prescott’s conviction on direct
appeal, Prescott, 2015 WL 1736223, at *10, and the California Supreme Court
2
Prescott will be eligible for parole during the 25th year of his incarceration. See
People v. Franklin, 63 Cal. 4th 261, 277–78 (2016); Cal. Penal Code § 3051.
3
denied Prescott’s petition for review. 3
B
Concurrently with his direct appeal, Prescott filed a habeas petition in state
court. The habeas petition largely focused on the two letters allegedly written by
Jones that Prescott claims absolve him of the shooting but were not introduced at
trial.
The first of these was an unsigned letter dated September 19, 2011.
Prescott’s girlfriend faxed a copy of the letter to Prescott’s trial counsel, John
Plaine, on September 28, 2011. Prescott told Plaine that his girlfriend had received
it from Jones. In the letter, the author apologized for accusing Prescott of being the
shooter and claimed that he felt pressured to accuse Prescott out of fear for his
family’s safety. The author asserted that an individual named Nick (nicknamed
“Poony”) was the actual shooter. This is apparently a reference to Nickie Donald,
as the letter states that Nick is the same person who was later found in possession
of the murder weapon. The author stated that he was willing to testify on
Prescott’s behalf. Because Jones told police during his initial interview that
3
In addition to denying Prescott’s petition for review, the California Supreme
Court granted the State’s petition for review regarding the Court of Appeal’s
decision to vacate Prescott’s sentence and remand for resentencing. On remand,
the California Court of Appeal again affirmed Prescott’s conviction and this time
affirmed his sentence as well. People v. Prescott, No. A135991, 2016 WL
6472877, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App., Nov. 2, 2016).
4
Prescott was the shooter, the letter’s apology for naming Prescott as the shooter is
consistent with Prescott’s belief that Jones authored the letter.
Prescott gave Plaine a second handwritten letter on May 8, 2012, the day the
trial court heard pretrial motions and the day before the parties began voir dire in
Prescott and Jones’s joint trial. This letter was dated January 25, 2012, and
identified Jones as the author. The letter stated that Jones wanted to “come clean”
and confess to shooting Johnson.
Plaine was unsure how to proceed after receiving the letters. Because the
letters each identified a different shooter, Plaine was unsure what probative value
these inconsistent statements would have. Plaine also feared that disclosing the
letters would mean that Jones and Prescott would no longer be detained together,
which Plaine thought would cut off Prescott’s ability to learn more about Jones’s
trial strategy and pass that information along to Plaine.
Plaine also had concerns about how to get the letters admitted into evidence.
At that point, Plaine did not know whether Jones would testify, and because
Prescott repeatedly refused to testify, Plaine could not authenticate and introduce
the letter through Prescott’s testimony. Plaine reached out to a retired handwriting
expert the public defender’s office had worked with in the past, David DeGarmo,
and asked him to assess whether Jones was the author of the two letters. After
reviewing numerous samples of Jones’s handwriting, DeGarmo was unable to say
5
whether the September 19, 2011, and January 25, 2012, letters were written by
Jones. After speaking with DeGarmo, Plaine later recalled that he had “no reason
to think that further investigation would be useful,” and he did not attempt to
introduce the letters.
In support of his habeas petition, Prescott also submitted various other
documents. One of these was a declaration from another attorney opining that
Plaine failed to adequately investigate whether the letters were genuine and that
Plaine’s hope to introduce them through the testimony of either Prescott or Jones
“was not a justifiable tactical decision.” Prescott also obtained a declaration from
another handwriting expert who opined that it was “highly probable” that Jones
wrote the prior letters. Prescott’s new expert further questioned whether DeGarmo
applied the appropriate methodology and whether DeGarmo was adequately
trained on modern handwriting analysis and techniques at the time he analyzed the
letters.
Additionally, Prescott submitted a declaration from Jones dated January 8,
2014—well after Jones had been acquitted—which stated that Jones had
committed the shooting and had written the letters. Finally, Prescott submitted his
own declaration stating that he was innocent of the shooting.
The California Court of Appeal summarily denied Prescott’s habeas petition,
and the California Supreme Court denied Prescott’s petition for review.
6
C
In 2016, Prescott filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254asserting that: (1) Prescott’s due process rights were violated by Plaine’s failure to
introduce Jones’s letters, which “establish Prescott’s actual innocence”; and (2)
Plaine provided ineffective assistance by failing to investigate and authenticate the
letters. 4
The district court denied the petition. See Prescott v. Santoro, No. 5:16-CV-
01359, 2019 WL 6771826 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2019). Regarding Prescott’s first
claim, there was some confusion as to what Prescott’s actual argument was. The
district court found that Prescott had “disclaim[ed] bringing a freestanding actual
innocence claim.” Id. at *5. The court instead interpreted Prescott’s argument to
be that he had submitted enough new evidence with his state habeas petition to
establish a prima facie case for relief, and that therefore the state court had
unreasonably applied California law by failing to order the State to show cause as
to why the petition should not be granted. See People v. Duvall, 9 Cal. 4th 464,
474–75 (1995) (explaining procedures governing habeas petitions under California
4
Prescott’s federal habeas petition also presented a third claim asserting that his
Sixth Amendment rights were violated when the trial court limited Prescott’s
ability to cross-examine Williams. The district court held the state trial court
reasonably determined the additional evidence Prescott sought to introduce was
cumulative, and Prescott does not appeal the denial of this claim.
7
law). The district court denied the claim because it was not based on federal law as
required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
On Prescott’s second claim, the district court held that the state court
reasonably rejected the ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The district court
found that “there was considerable evidence that Mr. DeGarmo was well qualified
to analyze the letters, and it was not unreasonable for the state court to reach that
conclusion,” citing the fact that DeGarmo had testified as an expert in over 300
cases as well as his decades of experience. Prescott, 2019 WL 6771826, at *8.
Because DeGarmo could not authenticate the letters, “it was not unreasonable for
the Court of Appeal to conclude that Mr. Plaine performed reasonably by not
continuing to investigate the authorship of the letter” after receiving DeGarmo’s
assessment. Id.After denying the petition, the district court issued a certificate of
appealability as to these two claims, and Prescott appealed.
II
We review the district court’s denial of a habeas petition de novo. Dixon v.
Shinn, 33 F.4th 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 2022). Under the Antiterrorism and Effective
Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), which is applicable here, habeas relief may not be
granted:
with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State
court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim--
8
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as
determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or
(2) resulted in a decision that 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). “[E]ven a strong case for relief does not mean the state
court’s” denial of a claim “was unreasonable.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86,
102 (2011). Instead, to obtain relief in federal court, a petitioner bears the burden
of demonstrating that the state court’s ruling “was so lacking in justification that
there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any
possibility for fairminded disagreement.” Id. at 103.
III
Prescott first claims that the state court unreasonably denied his actual
innocence claim. His arguments on this point are complex.
Prescott must satisfy the requirements of either § 2254(d)(1) or § 2254(d)(2)
to obtain federal habeas relief. Prescott concedes that his actual innocence claim is
not based on clearly established federal law and thus he cannot obtain relief under
§ 2254(d)(1). See Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 400 (1993). Instead, Prescott
argues that the state court made an unreasonable determination of the facts under
§ 2254(d)(2) by rejecting his claim of actual innocence. He asserts that by
summarily denying his petition, the state court necessarily found that Prescott had
9
failed to allege facts which, if true, stated a prima facie actual innocence claim.
See Duvall, 9 Cal. 4th at 474–75. This, Prescott contends, constituted an implicit
unreasonable determination of the facts given that Jones’s letters, if credited as
true, demonstrate that Prescott was not the shooter. Prescott then asserts that,
having satisfied § 2254(d)(2), AEDPA is no longer a barrier to his claims for relief
and that we may review the claims in his petition de novo. This includes his
freestanding federal actual innocence claim, even though such review would not be
available under § 2254(d)(1).
The State argues that we need not address the merits of Prescott’s
contentions because he expressly waived his actual innocence argument in his
district court briefing. We hold that Prescott did not waive the argument but that it
fails for other reasons.
A
As a threshold matter, we address the State’s argument that Prescott
disclaimed an actual innocence claim in his briefing to the district court.
Generally, “[h]abeas claims that are not raised before the district court in the
petition are not cognizable on appeal.” Robinson v. Kramer, 588 F.3d 1212, 1217
(9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Cacoperdo v. Demosthenes, 37 F.3d 504, 507 (9th Cir.
1994)).
The State’s argument is based on a passage from Prescott’s traverse in which
10
Prescott stated that “[t]he Attorney General acknowledges that Prescott has not
raised a freestanding actual innocence [claim].” The district court, in attempting to
decipher Prescott’s arguments, interpreted this passage to mean that Prescott had
disclaimed an actual innocence claim.
Although Prescott’s brief—as Prescott now admits—lacked “clarity” and
was “somewhat convoluted,” we find that he did not waive his federal actual
innocence claim. Prescott’s federal habeas petition plainly attempted to reassert
the same actual innocence claim that he exhausted (with express reference to
Herrera) in state court, 5 and again relied on both federal and state caselaw in
arguing that his “claim of actual innocence warrants relief”—even if the federal
cases cited in the petition are not the most apposite. Moreover, Prescott’s traverse
contains several other references to his actual innocence arguments, including an
unambiguous statement that “Jones’ confessions establish Prescott’s factual and
actual innocence.” Finally, the district court characterized the first claim in
5
As the parties agree, the state court’s denial of Prescott’s actual innocence claim
is properly construed as having rejected such a claim on the merits under both state
and federal law. Prescott’s state petition in the California Court of Appeal asserted
that imprisoning the actually innocent violates the Fourteenth Amendment, and this
claim was reasserted (with citation to Herrera) in Prescott’s petition for review in
the California Supreme Court. This was sufficient to exhaust his claim. See Fields
v. Waddington, 401 F.3d 1018, 1021 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]o alert the state court, a
petitioner must make reference to provisions of the federal Constitution or must
cite either federal or state case law that engages in a federal constitutional
analysis.”).
11
Prescott’s petition as re-raising his state court actual innocence claim, and issued a
certificate of appealability on that claim without any limitation. Prescott, 2019
WL 6771826, at *5, *9. Under these circumstances, we hold that Prescott has not
waived his federal actual innocence claim .6
B
Turning to the merits, Prescott must show that the state court’s decision
“was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence
presented in the State court proceeding” under § 2254(d)(2), given his concession
that § 2254(d)(1) does not apply. A petitioner can do so in two ways. Hibbler v.
Benedetti, 693 F.3d 1140, 1146 (9th Cir. 2012). “First, a petitioner may challenge
the substance of the state court’s findings and attempt to show that those findings
were not supported by substantial evidence in the state court record. Second, a
petitioner may challenge the fact-finding process itself on the ground that it was
deficient in some material way.” Id. (citation omitted).
“The question under AEDPA is not whether a federal court believes the state
court’s determination was incorrect but whether that determination was
unreasonable—a substantially higher threshold.” Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S.
6The State argues that, even if Prescott did preserve this claim below, the district
court did not actually address its merits. We need not decide whether that reading
of the district court’s order is correct because, even if it is, we may affirm a denial
of habeas relief “on any ground supported by the record.” Holley v. Yarborough,
568 F.3d 1091, 1098 (9th Cir. 2009).
12
465, 473 (2007). A petitioner challenging the substance of the state court’s
findings must show “that an appellate panel, applying the normal standards of
appellate review, could not reasonably conclude that the finding is supported by
the record.” Hibbler, 693 F.3d at 1146 (quoting Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992,
1000 (9th Cir. 2004)). A petitioner challenging the adequacy of the fact-finding
process must show no appellate court could reasonably hold “that the state court’s
fact-finding process was adequate.” Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d 943, 972 (9th
Cir. 2004) (quoting Taylor, 366 F.3d at 1000)).
Prescott cannot challenge the substance of the state courts’ factual findings
because the state courts made no factual findings. The California Court of Appeal
summarily denied Prescott’s state habeas petition in a one-sentence order, and the
California Supreme Court denied Prescott’s petition for review. The summary
denial constituted a determination by the state court “that the claims made in that
petition [did] not state a prima facie case entitling [Prescott] to relief.” In re Clark,
5 Cal. 4th 750, 770 (1993), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in In
re Friend, 11 Cal. 5th 720, 742 (2021). The California Court of Appeal’s decision
that Prescott’s new factual allegations, taken as true, were insufficient to state an
actual innocence claim constituted a legal determination, not a factual one. See
Duvall, 9 Cal. 4th at 475; see also In re Clark, 5 Cal. 4th at 769 n.9.
In the absence of substantive factual findings by the state courts, Prescott
13
contends that the state courts’ factfinding process was unreasonable because no
court could have reasonably found that Prescott’s allegations failed to establish a
prima facie case of actual innocence. Prescott argues that the summary denial was
necessarily and implicitly based on a factual determination that Jones’s confession
was not credible, and that the state court could not reasonably make this finding
without first holding an evidentiary hearing.
Our precedent establishes that a state court can engage in an unreasonable
factfinding procedure under § 2254(d)(2) in several different ways. Taylor v.
Maddox, 366 F.3d 992, 1000–01 (9th Cir. 2004), overruled on other grounds as
recognized by Murray v. Schriro, 745 F.3d 984, 999–1000 (9th Cir. 2014). For
example, a petitioner can raise a § 2254(d)(2) challenge to a state court’s
factfinding procedure “where the state court should have made a finding of fact but
neglected to do so.” Id. at 1000. Also, “[i]n some limited circumstances, we have
held that the state court’s failure to hold an evidentiary hearing may render its fact-
finding process unreasonable under § 2254(d)(2).” Hibbler, 693 F.3d at 1147. But
Prescott has not established that either scenario applies here.
First, Prescott has not shown that the state court had an obligation to make
any specific factual findings. In assessing Prescott’s innocence claim, the state
court did not view Prescott’s new evidence—principally in the form of Jones’s
letters—in a vacuum. “[N]ewly discovered evidence does not warrant relief unless
14
it is of such character as will completely undermine the entire structure of the case
upon which the prosecution was based.” In re Lawley, 42 Cal. 4th 1231, 1239
(2008) (citation omitted). Nor is the court required to accept “conclusory
allegations.” Duvall, 9 Cal. 4th at 474 (quoting People v. Karis, 46 Cal. 3d 612,
656 (1988)). The state court reviews the entire “record of the trial in order to
assess the merits of the petitioner’s claims.” In re Clark, 5 Cal. 4th at 770. “If ‘a
reasonable jury could have rejected’ the evidence presented, a petitioner has not
satisfied his burden.” In re Lawley, 42 Cal. 4th at 1239 (quoting In re Clark, 5 Cal.
4th at 798 n.33).
Accordingly, the state court could not consider Jones’s second letter—in
which he claims to have shot Johnson—in isolation when assessing whether
Prescott had presented a prima facie case of his innocence. Rather, the state court
had to consider the fact that the two letters from Jones that Prescott introduced
with his state habeas petition each identified a different person as the shooter.
Crediting the assertions made in both letters as true was impossible—the first letter
stated that Nickie Donald (“Poony”) was the shooter, and the second letter stated
that Jones was the shooter. They could not have both been the shooter as there was
only one shooter involved in the murder.
Further, the state court was also required to consider the other compelling
evidence of Prescott’s guilt in the record in assessing whether Prescott’s new
15
evidence was sufficient to create a prima facie case of actual innocence. This other
evidence included, most significantly, credible testimony from Perry that she saw
Prescott shoot Johnson, 7 as well as a letter written by Prescott in jail admitting that
he had taken a human life. Prescott, 2015 WL 1736223, at *2. In the context of
the entire record, we cannot say that Jones’s inconsistent letters, Jones’s post-
acquittal confession, and the other materials Prescott presented with his state
habeas petition compelled the conclusion that Prescott had set forth a prima facie
case of actual innocence such that the state court could not deny his petition
without explicitly assessing and rejecting his factual contentions. The California
Court of Appeal could have reasonably held that Prescott’s allegations, even if
credited, did not “undermine the entire prosecution case and point unerringly to
innocence or reduced culpability.” In re Lawley, 42 Cal. 4th at 1239.
Accordingly, the state court’s decision not to make specific factual findings did not
constitute an unreasonable factfinding procedure under § 2254(d)(2).
Nor was the state court’s decision not to conduct an evidentiary hearing to
assess Prescott’s contentions unreasonable. As noted, the state court could have
reasonably concluded that it did not need to make a credibility finding to reject
7
Prescott’s briefing attacks Perry’s credibility at length. But Prescott’s counsel
also challenged Perry’s credibility at trial, and the jury weighed these arguments
and reasonably found them unpersuasive. See Prescott, 2015 WL 1736223, at *6;
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2).
16
Prescott’s claims of actual innocence based on the circumstances of this case.
Thus, the decision not to conduct an evidentiary hearing in service of that
unnecessary credibility determination was reasonable. See Hibbler, 693 F.3d at
1147 (“A state court’s decision not to hold an evidentiary hearing does not render
its fact-finding process unreasonable so long as the state court could have
reasonably concluded that the evidence already adduced was sufficient to resolve
the factual question.”).
Prescott chiefly relies on Nunes v. Mueller, 350 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2003),
for the proposition that the summary denial of a habeas petition violates
§ 2254(d)(2) where a state court erroneously determines that the petitioner’s
factual allegations, taken as true, fail to state a prima face claim for relief. Nunes is
inapposite. There, we held that a state court’s denial of an ineffective assistance of
counsel claim under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), constituted an
“objectively unreasonable” determination of the facts under § 2254(d)(2) where the
state court actually made factual findings although it claimed to only be making a
“prima facie sufficiency” ruling. Nunes, 350 F.3d at 1056. The findings made by
the state court in Nunes distinguish the order there from the summary denial at
issue in Prescott’s case. For example, the state court in Nunes “concluded on the
record that Nunes could not show he would have accepted the state’s plea offer had
his attorney communicated it to him accurately,” and “found that materials Nunes
17
included in the record that showed his counsel’s delinquency were ‘of dubious
relevance’ and rejected as ‘simply not credible’ Nunes’ claim that he could not
reach his attorney to clarify the plea offer.” Id. at 1053–54. We assessed these
specific factual findings in light of the evidence in the record and held that the
findings were unreasonable under § 2254(d)(2).
No similar erroneous findings exist in Prescott’s case for us to assess. Nor
did Nunes hold that the state court engaged in an unreasonable factfinding process
by failing to make a factual finding that was purportedly compelled by the
materials submitted, as Prescott asks us to do here. Moreover, Nunes does not shed
any light on when a court is required to make specific factual findings or hold an
evidentiary hearing in assessing a claim of actual innocence.
Thus, Prescott has failed to demonstrate that the state court engaged in an
unreasonable factfinding procedure within the scope of § 2254(d)(2) either by
failing to make a finding of fact where it was required to do so, or by deciding that
an evidentiary hearing was unnecessary. Because Prescott cannot show that the
state court’s denial of his habeas claim was unreasonable under § 2254(d), his
petition must be denied.
C
Even if Prescott could show that the state court made an unreasonable
determination of fact under § 2254(d)(2) and obtain de novo review of his
18
freestanding federal actual innocence claim, he would need to demonstrate such a
claim “is cognizable in a federal habeas corpus proceeding in the non-capital
context.” Jones v. Taylor, 763 F.3d 1242, 1246 (9th Cir. 2014). This is an open
question. Taylor v. Beard, 811 F.3d 326, 334 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). But we
need not resolve that issue here because Prescott’s new evidence does not meet the
“extraordinarily high” threshold showing of actual innocence that would be
necessary to prevail on such a claim. Herrera, 506 U.S. at 417.
We have stated that, to the extent a federal actual innocence claim exists, a
petitioner asserting such a claim need assert more than that insufficient evidence
supported the petitioner’s conviction. Carriger v. Stewart, 132 F.3d 463, 476–77
(9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). Instead, the “petitioner must demonstrate that ‘in light
of new evidence, it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have
found [the] petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Jones, 763 F.3d at 1247(alteration in original) (quoting House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518, 537 (2006)). “This
new evidence must be reliable, and the reviewing court ‘may consider how the
timing of the submission and the likely credibility of the affiants bear on the
probable reliability of that evidence.’” Id. (quoting Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298,
332 (1995)). Based on the “total record, the court must make a probabilistic
determination about what reasonable, properly instructed jurors would do.” Id.(quoting House, 547 U.S. at 538).
19
Our decision in Carriger illustrates the “extraordinarily high” standard a
petitioner must meet to establish actual innocence. Carriger was convicted of
murder. Carriger, 132 F.3d at 465. The prosecution’s chief witness was a man
named Robert Dunbar, who claimed that Carriger “had confessed the crime to him
immediately after it happened.” Id. at 466. But during Carriger’s post-conviction
proceedings, Dunbar’s wife at the time of the murder testified that Dunbar told her
that he had committed the crime. Id. at 467. During these proceedings, Dunbar
recanted his trial testimony and confessed under oath to committing the murder.
Id. at 467. The record also contained evidence that Dunbar had boasted to others
about framing Carriger and that Dunbar knew details of the crime that only a
participant would have known. Id. at 478–79. Complicating matters, Dunbar later
recanted the confession he made at the post-conviction hearing and claimed his
original trial testimony (accusing Carriger of the murder) was truthful. Id. at 467.
Sitting en banc, we rejected Carriger’s actual innocence claim. Id. at 477.
We held that while Carriger’s new evidence “cast[] a vast shadow of doubt over
the reliability of his conviction, nearly all of it serves only to undercut the evidence
presented at trial, not affirmatively to prove [his] innocence.” Id. We noted that
Carriger had not introduced any other evidence “demonstrating he was elsewhere
at the time of the murder, nor is there any new and reliable physical evidence, such
as DNA, that would preclude any possibility of [his] guilt.” Id. We further stated
20
that while Dunbar’s confession was relevant, “we cannot completely ignore the
contradictions in Dunbar’s stories and his history of lying.” Id.; see also Smith v.
Baldwin, 510 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (rejecting actual innocence
“gateway” claim even where a key witness recanted his testimony).
Prescott’s actual innocence claim does not come close to meeting this
demanding standard. As noted in the previous section, the record contains
extensive and compelling evidence supporting Prescott’s conviction. For example,
there was surveillance video placing Prescott at the apartment complex at the time
of the shooting. Perry testified that she made eye contact with the shooter,
provided police with description of the suspect that closely matched Prescott’s
appearance, and later specifically identified Prescott as the shooter. Additionally,
the jury was presented with Prescott’s letters he wrote while in jail, in which he
apologized for taking a human life. While there were grounds to impeach Perry’s
testimony—Perry was not wearing her glasses, only briefly saw the shooter at a
distance of about 25 feet, and had reasons to be biased against Prescott’s gang—
the jury was able to consider these arguments in evaluating her credibility at trial.
Further, Jones has made three inconsistent statements about the identity of
the shooter. First, he told police during an initial interview that Prescott was the
shooter. Second, in the 2011 letter, Jones claimed that Nickie Donald (“Poony”)
was the shooter. Third, in the 2012 letter, Jones asserted that he was the shooter.
21
In evaluating what a reasonable jury would think upon hearing Prescott’s new
evidence, we must account for the fact that Jones’s statements would be impeached
with these inconsistencies. See Smith, 510 F.3d at 1141 (considering a witness’s
inconsistent statements in evaluating a habeas petitioner’s actual innocence claim).
Further, the veracity of Jones’s 2014 post-verdict declaration accepting
responsibility is also open to question, given that Jones had been acquitted and
could not be retried for the murder. See id. at 1141–42 (noting we are not required
to assume that reasonable jurors would believe the testimony of someone “serving
a life term in prison” and who thus “faces almost no consequences for lying to
them”); see also Jones, 763 F.3d at 1248 (noting we can assess the impact of
unreliable testimony on a hypothetical reasonable juror based on the record and are
not necessarily bound by a trial court’s credibility findings).
For these reasons, even assuming that a claim of actual innocence is
cognizable, we find that Prescott has failed to meet his burden to show that he is
entitled to federal habeas relief based on such a claim.
IV
Prescott next claims that Plaine provided ineffective assistance of counsel
“by failing to adequately investigate and establish before trial that” Jones
“authored two letters confessing to the crime and exculpating Prescott.” Claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel are reviewed under the two-part test set forth in
22
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). First, a petitioner must
demonstrate that “counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness.” Id. at 688. Second, the petitioner must demonstrate that “there is
a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of
the proceeding would have been different.” Id. at 694.
The district court denied the claim on the ground that Prescott had failed to
satisfy the first prong of the test. “[T]he performance inquiry must be whether
counsel’s assistance was reasonable considering all the circumstances.” Id. at 688.
This inquiry is “highly deferential.” Id. at 689. “Because of the difficulties
inherent in making the evaluation, a court must indulge a strong presumption that
counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance;
that is, the defendant must overcome the presumption that, under the
circumstances, the challenged action might be considered sound trial strategy.” Id.(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
“Establishing that a state court’s application of Strickland was unreasonable
under § 2254(d) is all the more difficult. The standards created by Strickland and
§ 2254(d) are both highly deferential, and when the two apply in tandem, review is
doubly so.” Richter, 562 U.S. at 105 (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted). “When § 2254(d) applies, the question is not whether counsel’s actions
23
were reasonable. The question is whether there is any reasonable argument that
counsel satisfied Strickland’s deferential standard.” Id.
Prescott argues that it is well established that an attorney who fails to
adequately investigate and introduce exculpatory evidence has rendered deficient
performance. See Avila v. Galaza, 297 F.3d 911, 919 (9th Cir. 2002). Prescott
contends that the failure to authenticate the letters “fell well below the reasonable
standard of care.” Prescott asserts that it was not a reasonable trial strategy to hope
one of the co-defendants would testify so that the letters could be authenticated
through their testimony, nor was it reasonable to fail to disclose the letters in the
hope that Prescott and Jones would continue to be detained together so that
Prescott might be able to learn more about Jones’s litigation strategy.
Prescott also faults Plaine’s selection of DeGarmo as a handwriting expert.
Prescott argues that Plaine acted unreasonably by failing to educate himself
regarding modern handwriting analysis standards, which he alleges would have put
Plaine on notice that DeGarmo was unqualified and had failed to utilize those
standards. Prescott also asserts that Plaine acted unreasonably by not making
additional efforts to authenticate the letters after DeGarmo reported that analysis
was inconclusive.
We agree with the district court that it was not unreasonable for the
California Court of Appeal to reject this claim. Prescott, 2019 WL 6771826, at *8.
24
DeGarmo had 30 years of experience and had testified as an expert in over 300
cases. Id. This was a sufficient and reasonable basis for the state court to have
found that DeGarmo was qualified, or at least that Plaine did not act deficiently in
believing DeGarmo to be qualified and relying on DeGarmo’s conclusions. Id.Plaine provided DeGarmo with sufficient samples of Jones’s handwriting for
DeGarmo to conduct his analysis, and after DeGarmo conducted that analysis, he
reported that he could not reach a conclusion about whether Jones wrote the letters.
Plaine did not have an obligation to seek out multiple experts until he found one
that would give him the answer he was looking for. See Crittenden v. Ayers, 624
F.3d 943, 966 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Attorneys are entitled to rely on the opinions of
properly selected, adequately informed and well-qualified experts.”).
For these reasons, we hold that the California Court of Appeal could have
reasonably found that Plaine did not render ineffective assistance of counsel. See
Richter, 562 U.S. at 105. Thus, we need not address Strickland’s second prong
regarding whether Prescott was prejudiced by his attorney’s allegedly deficient
performance. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687.
V
The district court’s denial of Prescott’s petition is AFFIRMED.8
8
Prescott’s unopposed motion for judicial notice (Dkt. No. 39) is granted.
25
FILED
NOV 15 2022
Prescott v. Santoro, 19-17509 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
COLLINS, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment:
I concur in the court’s opinion, except as to section III-C. That section
addresses an additional issue that, in view of our holding in section III-B, is
unnecessary to decide. I therefore express no view on it.