(HC) Brannigan v. Barnes
2:13-cv-01810
| E.D. Cal. | Sep 7, 2017Background
- Petitioner Jason R. Brannigan was convicted by a jury (Jan. 2011) of corporal injury to a cohabitant, criminal threats, false imprisonment, misdemeanor child endangerment, and felony vandalism; enhancements were found and he was sentenced to 18 years 8 months.
- The vandalism charge arose from Brannigan’s aggressive driving of his girlfriend’s car, after which the car developed a clicking noise and required over $500 in repairs.
- On direct appeal, the California Court of Appeal affirmed; the California Supreme Court denied review.
- Brannigan filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 raising (inter alia) insufficiency of the evidence for vandalism, two Brady claims (repair work order and family-court impeachment testimony), ineffective assistance for failing to obtain those materials, and a Confrontation Clause challenge to admission of victim medical records.
- The district court held some claims untimely, found the remaining timely claims without merit under AEDPA deference, and denied an evidentiary hearing and a certificate of appealability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for felony vandalism | Brannigan: no evidence he maliciously intended to vex/injure or caused the car damage | State: circumstantial evidence (assault, erratic driving, timing of damage, repair cost) supports malicious intent and causation | Denied — a rational juror could find malicious intent and damage beyond a reasonable doubt; state court decision was reasonable under Jackson/AEDPA |
| Brady — repair work order (exculpatory vehicle repair estimate) | Brannigan: prosecution withheld a 2008 work order showing pre-existing damage, which is exculpatory | State: exhibit was marked at trial (not suppressed); no showing the form linked to the post-incident damage or that delayed disclosure prejudiced defense | Denied — no suppression/materiality; no reasonable probability of a different outcome |
| Brady — family court impeachment testimony | Brannigan: prosecution failed to disclose Family Court testimony that would impeach witnesses | State: claim was not raised in the timely federal filing and did not relate back to earlier petition | Denied as untimely (did not relate back to timely claims) |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to obtain/introduce work order | Brannigan: counsel failed to investigate and introduce the work order | State: the work order was in the record as an exhibit; no linkage shown between the 2008 form and the post-incident damage; no prejudice shown | Denied — no deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland and AEDPA deferential review |
| Confrontation Clause — admission of victim medical records | Brannigan: admission violated his right to confront witnesses | State: claim was not raised in the initial petition and is untimely | Denied as untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (federal standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecutor must disclose materially exculpatory or impeaching evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Cavazos v. Smith, 565 U.S. 1 (federal courts may overturn sufficiency rulings only if state court decision was objectively unreasonable)