Guy Rowland v. Kevin Chappell
876 F.3d 1174
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Guy Kevin Rowland was convicted of first-degree murder (special circumstance: murder during rape) and rape for the March 16, 1986 killing of Marion Richardson; a jury returned a death sentence after the penalty phase.
- Evidence: Rowland beat, raped, choked Richardson, placed methamphetamine in her mouth, disposed of her body at Half Moon Bay, then confessed to a companion (Susan Lanet); physical evidence in his truck tied him to the crime.
- Aggravation at sentencing emphasized an extensive, violent criminal history including multiple rapes, kidnappings, and assaults (notably the repeated rape of a 13-year-old); mitigation included Rowland’s abusive childhood, substance abuse, and psychiatric evaluations.
- State appellate proceedings: California Supreme Court affirmed conviction and death sentence; Rowland pursued state habeas relief (summarily denied) and later filed federal habeas under 28 U.S.C. §2254; the district court granted summary judgment for the State and denied a COA on most claims.
- This appeal addresses (inter alia) AEDPA’s application, multiple ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims (penalty phase preparation and witness decisions), alleged prosecutorial misconduct in penalty-phase argument, and a claimed counsel conflict of interest; the Ninth Circuit affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rowland) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AEDPA applies to Rowland’s federal petition | Pre-AEDPA filings (stay, appointment request) were "deemed" a petition under local rule, so AEDPA should not apply | AEDPA governs because no actual merits habeas application was before the court pre-AEDPA | AEDPA applies; Garceau controls — case pending only when an actual merits application is filed |
| Ineffective assistance for inadequate preparation of psychiatrist (Dr. Ridlehuber) | Counsel retained psychiatrist too late and failed to provide records; fuller evaluation would have produced stronger mitigation (organic brain injury, bipolar, ADHD) | Even if deficient, any additional psychiatric evidence would not have changed outcome given overwhelming aggravation | Counsel was deficient in delaying/underpreparing expert, but under AEDPA the state court reasonably denied relief for lack of prejudice |
| Ineffective assistance for not calling Susan Lanet at penalty phase | Lanet would have testified about statements showing a quarrel motive (lessening culpability; undermining rape finding) | Trial strategy: recalling her risked revisiting brutal facts and exposing defendant to impeachment; limited mitigating value | State court reasonably found omission a valid strategic choice and, alternatively, not prejudicial; no relief granted |
| Prosecutorial personal-opinion remarks in penalty-phase closing | Prosecutor improperly expressed personal willingness to vote for death, unduly influencing jury | Statements were based on facts of record and not so inflammatory as to deny due process | Remarks inappropriate but not unconstitutional under Darden; state court rejection reasonable and harmless |
| Prosecutor’s references to California voters/ousting justices (Caldwell claim) | Remarks led jury to defer responsibility, minimizing their sentencing role (Caldwell error) | Comments, in context, addressed availability of death penalty generally and did not shift responsibility from the jury | No Caldwell violation reasonably found; any misconduct harmless given the record |
| Conflict of interest (trial counsel’s relationship with investigating detective) | Counsel had personal/professional ties to Detective Singleton that created an actual conflict affecting performance | Relationship was successive/former, not concurrent; no evidence it adversely affected performance | No Sullivan/Mickens presumed-prejudice; state court reasonably found no actual conflict affecting counsel’s performance |
Key Cases Cited
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (AEDPA’s deferential standard; state-court decisions entitled to doubt)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance two-prong test: deficiency and prejudice)
- Woodford v. Garceau, 538 U.S. 202 (AEDPA applies only if merits petition was not pending pre-AEDPA)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (counsel’s duty to investigate mitigation and effect of late preparation)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (assessing prejudice by reweighing aggravating vs mitigating evidence)
- Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (prosecutorial misconduct standard — due process only if remarks so infect trial with unfairness)
- Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162 (limits on presumed prejudice for counsel conflicts; Sullivan exception scope)
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (presumption of prejudice where actual conflict in concurrent representation)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (harmless-error standard for habeas relief)