Earl Cannedy, Jr. v. Darrel Adams
733 F.3d 794
9th Cir.2013Background
- Defendant Earl Cannedy Jr. convicted of multiple sexual offenses against his 13-year-old stepdaughter; convicted at trial after corroborating witnesses testified.
- Post-conviction claim: ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to present a friend who allegedly saw an AIM message in which the victim recanted; new declarations and email evidence were developed after trial.
- California Court of Appeal denied the habeas petition on the merits, finding no evidence counsel knew of the friend or AIM post and thus no deficient performance or prejudice.
- California Supreme Court summarily denied Cannedy’s petition without opinion after Cannedy submitted additional declarations; no reasoned state-court opinion issued.
- Federal district court held an evidentiary hearing, considered the new evidence, and granted habeas relief; Ninth Circuit panel affirmed the grant, applying the Ylst look-through presumption to treat the California Supreme Court as adopting the Court of Appeal’s reasoning.
- Dissent argues the Ninth Circuit panel misapplied Supreme Court precedent (Richter, Pinholster, Ylst, Johnson), improperly relied on evidence not before the lower state court, and failed to give state courts the benefit of the doubt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the California Supreme Court’s summary denial should be treated as adopting the Court of Appeal’s reasoning (Ylst look-through) | Cannedy: the CA Supreme Court’s silence should be read against the Court of Appeal’s reasoning, permitting review against that earlier opinion | State/majority: apply Ylst presumption that unexplained affirmances rest on last reasoned decision | Dissent: Ylst was misapplied; more plausible that CA Supreme Court considered new evidence and summarily denied on merits; panel should have asked whether any reasonable argument could support denial (Richter) |
| Whether federal courts may consider evidence presented for the first time in federal habeas proceedings when evaluating §2254(d) reasonableness | Cannedy: federal court may consider new evidence to determine reasonableness of state-court adjudication | State/majority: Pinholster bars considering evidence not before the state court when applying §2254(d) | Dissent: agrees Pinholster prohibits judging state decision by facts not before it; majority nonetheless compared prior opinion to new evidence via look-through, which is improper |
| How to interpret silence of state court when new evidence was submitted to it after a lower court’s reasoned decision | Cannedy: silence implies adoption of lower court’s reasoning, so new evidence shows that reasoning was unreasonable | State/majority: assume adoption of lower court’s reasoning absent indication otherwise | Dissent: common-sense presumption favors that state supreme court considered new evidence and found petition meritless; do not force mandatory opinion-writing (Johnson, Richter) |
| Whether habeas relief was warranted on ineffective-assistance claim given the record | Cannedy: new declarations show counsel failed to call corroborating witness, causing prejudice | State/majority: treating CA Supreme Court as adopting lower-court view, panel found relief appropriate | Dissent: fair-minded jurists could reasonably conclude Cannedy’s declarations were too vague or the testimony not prejudicial; §2254(d) deference requires denying relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797 (presumption that later unexplained orders adopt reasoning of last reasoned decision)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (federal courts must respect state court decisionmaking; cannot dictate opinion-writing)
- Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19 (state-court decisions entitled to benefit of the doubt under §2254(d))
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (summary state-court denials may be deemed adjudications on the merits; federal courts must ask whether any reasonable argument supports the denial)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (federal review under §2254(d) limited to record before the state court)
- Johnson v. Williams, 568 U.S. 289 (state courts need not discuss every claim; silence does not imply oversight)