Free Smith v. Derral Adams
506 F. App'x 561
9th Cir.2013Background
- Smith challenges district court denial of habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
- California Court of Appeal held no Sixth Amendment violation for not appointing new counsel at Marsden pre-trial.
- No actual conflict of interest was shown; disagreement over strategy/distrust is not habeas grounds.
- Trial court conducted thorough inquiry; no currently unaddressed conflict evidence.
- No due process violation from continuance denial at sentencing; broad trial court discretion applied.
- No due process violation from jury instruction/response or from proffered witness testimony or prosecutor comments, and no ineffective assistance by trial or appellate counsel; no double jeopardy issue with §12022.53(d).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sixth Amendment rights at Marsden pre-trial | Smith argues conflict/distrust required new counsel. | No actual conflict; relationships insufficient for relief. | No Sixth Amendment violation. |
| Continuance denial at sentencing | Wish to file pro se motion for new trial; continuance needed. | Continued discretion; grounds already rejected. | No due process violation. |
| Admission of menacing T-shirt testimony | Prejudicial/rawly unfair evidence. | Testimony only indirectly implicated Smith; curative instruction given. | No due process violation. |
| Prosecutor's comments about witnesses | Comments impermissibly highlight defendant's failure to testify. | Comments pertain to witnesses, not defendant’s silence. | No Griffin violation. |
| Ineffective assistance and double jeopardy | Counsel failed to call expert/Woods; improper sentencing. | Speculation insufficient; witnesses and strategy decisions are trial tactics; no double jeopardy issue. | No reversible error; no ineffective assistance or double jeopardy violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Marsden, 465 P.2d 44 (Cal. 1970) (pretrial right to conflict inquiry atMarsden hearings; not guarantee of ongoing relationship with counsel)
- Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1983) (Sixth Amendment doesn't guarantee meaningful relationship with counsel; no conflict shown)
- Plumlee v. Masto, 512 F.3d 1204 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc; not ineffective where no actual conflict or prejudice)
- Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575 (U.S. 1964) (continuance just and within trial court discretion)
- Waddington v. Sarausad, 555 U.S. 179 (U.S. 2009) (presumption jury understood court's instructions)
- Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (U.S. 1965) (prosecutor comments about failure to testify must be careful)
- Grisby v. Blodgett, 130 F.3d 365 (9th Cir. 1997) (speculation about expert testimony insufficient for prejudice)
- Plascencia v. Alameida, 467 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2006) (double jeopardy concerning consecutive sentence)