Elliott Rogers v. Mark Shepherd
438 F. App'x 546
9th Cir.2011Background
- Rogers challenges a California state conviction for second degree robbery with a firearm and felon in possession, sentenced to 64 years to life.
- Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was denied by the district court; Rogers seeks habeas relief in this circuit.
- The panel reviews the district court’s denial de novo under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
- Rogers claims include ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and appellate levels and prosecutorial misconduct.
- Key legal framework centers on Strickland v. Washington, with heightened deference under § 2254(d).
- The court affirms the district court’s decision and denies relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for failing to call two witnesses | Rogers argues initial counsel's silence on witnesses prejudiced case | California court reasonably found counsel's decision tactical and non-deficient | No deficient performance; no prejudice shown |
| Ineffective assistance by replacement trial counsel | Replacement counsel should have renewed motion to dismiss | Counsel reasonably declined to pursue renewal | Not persuasive; same reasoning as above applies |
| Ineffective assistance by appellate counsel | Appellate counsel failed to raise trial-counsel ineffectiveness | Reasonable strategy to avoid duplicative claims on appeal | affirmed as no merit shown |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing | Comment violated due process | Comment isolated, addressed by court, not structural error | No due process violation; misconduct harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes deficient performance and prejudice standard)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (unexplained state result still must be reasonably justified under §2254(d))
- Premo v. Moore, 131 S. Ct. 733 (2011) (clarifies tandem application of Strickland and § 2254(d))
- Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (1986) (due process standard for prosecutorial misconduct)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (harmless error standard in habeas review)
- Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (1986) (requirement to show meritorious Fourth Amendment claim and prejudice)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) (counsel's performance must be evaluated for reasonableness)
- Donelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (1974) (prosecutorial misstatement standard in closing argument)
- United States v. Simtob, 901 F.2d 799 (9th Cir. 1990) (due process fairness assessment of prosecutorial conduct)
- U.S. v. Younger, 398 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2005) (isolated improper closing statement regarded as harmless)