Earl Cannedy, Jr. v. Darrel Adams
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2646
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Cannedy convicted in California state court of three counts of lewd and lascivious acts on A.G. and one count of attempting to dissuade her from reporting the crime.
- A.G. testified to multiple molestation incidents in 2003; defense highlighted inconsistencies and credibility issues among witnesses.
- Government admitted propensity evidence about a separate alleged assault against T.C., which trial relied on to prove credibility and motive.
- Petitioner argued ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to present key witnesses, notably J.C., who purportedly recanted A.G.’s allegations online.
- California Courts of Appeal rejected the IAC claim as vague and lacking evidence; California Supreme Court denied writs summarily.
- District court held an evidentiary hearing and granted habeas relief based on IAC, leading to this appeal by the state.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by reviewing evidence outside the state court record under AEDPA. | Cannedy argues Cullen v. Pinholster limits review to the record before the state court. | Adams counters that look-through to extra-record evidence is improper after Cullen; state court merits denial controls. | No; review limited to the record before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits. |
| Whether trial counsel’s failure to interview or call J.C. was deficient performance under Strickland. | Cannedy asserts counsel should have interviewed J.C. and introduced her recantation to show motive to lie. | Adams contends no deficiency because no proof counsel knew of J.C. or the recantation. | Unreasonable application of Strickland; failure to interview/call J.C. was deficient. |
| Whether the deficiency prejudiced the outcome such that a reasonable probability of a different result existed. | Introduction of away message would have undermined A.G.’s credibility and possibly acquitted on the dissuasion count. | Prejudice not established because away message could have been inadmissible or not probative. | There is a reasonable probability that the outcome would have differed if the away message had been admitted. |
| Whether the California Supreme Court’s denial of the habeas petition was an adjudication on the merits requiring look-through. | Cannedy contends Richter requires looking at the last reasoned decision; the denial was merits-based. | Adams argues look-through to state appellate reasoning is inappropriate post-Richter. | Richter permits looking through to the last reasoned decision; court reviews accordingly. |
| Whether the away message could have been admitted as a prior inconsistent statement under California law. | The away message constitutes a prior inconsistent statement that could exculpate if admitted. | Foundation required; the state court could reasonably find inadmissible. | Yes; admissible with proper foundation; its admission would have been prejudicial to the prosecution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011) (limits § 2254(d)(1) review to the record before the state court)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (establishes deferential review under § 2254(d)(1) and Strickland standard)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (explains 'unreasonable application' standard and deference to state court decisions)
- Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797 (1991) (origin of 'look through' doctrine for summary denials)
- James v. Ryan, 679 F.3d 780 (2012) (describes deference in reviewing Strickland claims on AEDPA)
- Richter v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (establishes standard for 'unreasonable application' of clearly established law)
- In re Harris, 5 Cal.4th 813 (1993) (habeas petition procedure; prima facie case standard)
- People v. Duvall, 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 259 (1995) (habeas evidence and documentary support requirements)