Phillips

Phillips v. Ornoski

Good Law
673 F.3d 1168·2012 WL 899634·2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5518
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 16, 201204-99005California40,970 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Reinhardt, J.

Opinion by Judge REINHARDT; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge KLEINFELD.

OPINION

In this case we consider a capital habeas corpus petition filed prior to the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) and thus governed by pre-AEDPA law. Petitioner Richard Louis Arnold Phillips appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition on three grounds. First, he contends that the district court’s procedural rulings improperly denied him a full evidentiary hearing. Second, he asserts that his trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance under the Sixth Amendment by allowing him to proceed with a manifestly unconvincing alibi defense without first investigating any alternative defenses. Third, he argues that the prosecution’s failure to reveal that a key prosecution witness received significant benefits in exchange for her testimony after the witness falsely testified she had been promised no such benefits, coupled with the prosecutor’s false representation to the jury that there was no agreement promising such benefits, violated his due process rights. We conclude that the district court did not err in its…

035concurrenceinpart Opinion

Kleinfeld, J.

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

Phillips murdered Bruce Bartulis at a vacant lot in 1977. He did his best to also murder Bartulis’s companion, Robert Rose. He shot Rose five times with a .45, poured gasoline on him, set him on fire with matches he had borrowed from Rose himself when they had stopped at a gas station (even though Phillips was a nonsmoker), and ran him over with a car. Phillips had told Bartulis and Rose, falsely, that he was going to make them a lot of money if they gave him $25,000 to buy *1198 cocaine for sale, and then told them he was going to sell them a lot of stolen insulation (they were builders). He did not have $25,000 worth of cocaine and did not have the stolen insulation. He told them to bring with them all the money they could get together, and to follow him to the deserted location he picked. After he shot them both, he took their wallets, picked up the brass from his cartridges, and went on the lam under a false name.

Rose amazingly survived the five bullets Phillips shot into his head, stomach, and arm, survived being set on fire, and survived being run over. He was the star witness against Phillips at trial, testifying to the events…

Opinion

Richard Phillips, San Quentin, CA, appearing pro se; Katherine L. Hart, Fresno, CA, advisory counsel, for the petitioner-appellant.

Catherine Chatman, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Sacramento, CA; Robert Todd Marshall, Assistant Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for the respondent-appellee.

Before: BETTY B. FLETCHER, STEPHEN REINHARDT, and ANDREW J. KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge REINHARDT; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge KLEINFELD.

REINHARDT, Circuit Judge:

In this case we consider a capital habeas corpus petition filed prior to the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) and thus governed by pre-AEDPA law. Petitioner Richard Louis Arnold Phillips appeals the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition on three grounds. First, he contends that the district court's procedural rulings improperly denied him a full evidentiary hearing. Second, he asserts that his trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance under the Sixth Amendment by allowing him to proceed with a manifestly unconvincing alibi defense without first investigating any alternative defenses. Third, he argues that…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.