Phillip Dorsett v. Domingo Uribe, Jr.
599 F. App'x 808
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Dorsett was convicted in California of second-degree murder after claiming he shot Jesse Fujino in self-defense.
- After conviction, Abel Soto — a gang member who says he witnessed the shooting and supports Dorsett’s self-defense claim — provided a declaration corroborating Dorsett’s account.
- Trial counsel did not interview Soto; Soto had earlier given police an inconsistent statement (said he didn’t know) before later giving the declaration.
- Dorsett sought state habeas relief; the California Supreme Court denied it without opinion. A federal district court denied his § 2254 petition.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and found counsel’s failure to interview Soto was an unreasonable application of Strickland under AEDPA, particularly in light of Riley v. Payne.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed, directing the district court to grant a conditional writ ordering the state to retry Dorsett within a reasonable time or release him.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to interview Soto | Counsel’s failure was deficient and prejudiced Dorsett because Soto’s declaration corroborates self-defense | Counsel could reasonably decline to interview Soto given his prior inconsistent police statement | Court held counsel’s performance was unreasonable under Strickland; prejudice established — habeas relief warranted |
| Appropriate remedy for constitutional error | Dorsett sought habeas relief vacating conviction | State sought to uphold conviction | Court ordered conditional writ: state must retry Dorsett within a reasonable time or release him |
Key Cases Cited
- Riley v. Payne, 352 F.3d 1313 (9th Cir. 2003) (counsel’s failure to investigate a corroborating postconviction witness can constitute an unreasonable application of Strickland)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (AEDPA review requires deference; question is whether any reasonable argument supports counsel’s conduct)
- Lewis v. Mayle, 391 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2004) (standard of review for district court habeas decisions)