Lawtis Donald Rhoden v. James Rowland, Director, California Department of Corrections

Lawtis Donald Rhoden appeals the district court’s dismissal of his habeas corpus petition challenging his sentence and conviction in California state court. We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether appellant’s shackling at trial was prejudicial. We affirm on appellant’s other contentions.

Rhoden was convicted after a jury trial in the Orange County California Superior Court of one count of rape, in violation of Cal.Penal Code § 261(2); one count of penetration with a foreign object, in violation of Cal.Penal Code § 289(a); and one count of sexual battery, in violation of Cal.Penal Code § 243.4. The central issue at trial was whether there was consent to the sexual conduct.

Shackling

Rhoden’s legs were shackled throughout the trial, and as the California Court of Appeal subsequently ruled, without adequate justification. The principal issue in this ha-beas proceeding is whether the shackling was prejudicial, and this issue in turn depends on whether the jury saw the shackles.

concurring:

Although I concur in the result, I do not concur in the court’s analysis. The Supreme Court has “held that 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d) requires federal courts in habeas proceedings to accord a presumption of correctness to state-court findings of fact. This requirement could not be plainer.” Sumner v. Mata, 455 U.S. 591, 591-92 , 102 S.Ct. 1303, 1304 , 71 L.Ed.2d 480 (1982). This presumption is so strong “that if a federal court concludes that the presumption of correctness does not control, it must provide a written explanation of the reasoning that led it to conclude” that one of the eight exceptions from section 2254(d) applies. Id. at 592 , 102 S.Ct. at 1304 .

The majority’s opinion simply does not give sufficient weight to this presumption. Instead of starting with the presumption of correctness of the state court’s factual findings and reasoning how this presumption is overcome in the present case, the court adopts, at pages 1459-60 of its opinion, sweeping language of the federal courts’ “plenary” power to try facts anew. The majority’s reliance on Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 312 , 83 S.Ct. 745, 757 , 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963), is inappropriate given that Townsend was…

10 F.3d 1457 Lawtis Donald RHODEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James ROWLAND, Director, California Department of Corrections, et al., Respondents-Appellees. No. 91-56350. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted March 1, 1993. Decided Nov. 29, 1993. Carl R. Katz, Denise Meyer and Charles D. Weisselberg, The Law Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, for petitioner-appellant. David A. Warshaw, Deputy Atty. Gen., Los Angeles, CA, for respondents-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before SCHROEDER, THOMPSON and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges. SCHROEDER, Circuit Judge: 1 Lawtis Donald Rhoden appeals the district court's dismissal of his habeas corpus petition challenging his sentence and conviction in California state court. We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether appellant's shackling at trial was prejudicial. We affirm on appellant's other contentions. 2 Rhoden was convicted after a jury trial in the Orange County California Superior Court of one count of rape, in violation of Cal.Penal Code Sec. 261(2); one count of penetration with a foreign object,…