Anthony Alexander Campbell v. Bert Rice, Warden

Good Law
2001 Daily Journal DAR 9917·265 F.3d 878·2001 WL 1044603·2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8039·2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 20321
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 12, 200199-17311California5,522 words

Opinion

Opinion

Pregerson, J.

Anthony Alexander Campbell (“Campbell”) appeals from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. In his petition, Campbell challenges the constitutionality of his state court convictions for eighteen counts of first-degree burglary and one count of attempted burglary on the grounds that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Campbell asserts that, at the time of his trial, defense counsel suffered from a conflict of interest because she was facing her own criminal prosecution on a felony drug charge by the same district attorney’s office.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We conclude that Campbell’s attorney suffered from a potentially serious conflict of interest that was brought to the attention of the trial judge, who failed to make an inquiry into the conflict. Under these circumstances, the conviction cannot stand. Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 488-89 , 98 S.Ct. 1173 , 55 L.Ed.2d 426 (1978). We therefore reverse the district court’s denial of Campbell’s habeas petition and remand with instructions to grant the writ.

I.

FACTS and PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On May 26, 1995, Linda Scharback looked out her window…

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.