Robert Frederick Garceau v. Jeanne Woodford, Acting Warden of San Quentin State Prison

275 F.3d 769 (9th Cir. 2001) ROBERT FREDERICK GARCEAU, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. JEANNE WOODFORD, ACTING WARDEN OF SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE. No. 99-99022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Argued and Submitted May 17, 2001 Filed Dec. 26, 2001 [Copyrighted Material Omitted] Lynne S. Coffin, San Francisco, California, and Denise Kendall, Mill Valley, California, for the petitioner-appellant. Clayton S. Tanaka, Deputy Attorney General of California, Sacramento, California, for the respondent-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Oliver W. Wanger, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. CV F-95-5363 OWW Before: Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, A. Wallace Tashima, and Sidney R. Thomas, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Tashima; Concurrence by Judge Thomas; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge O'Scannlain TASHIMA, Circuit Judge: 1 Robert Garceau was convicted of a double homicide in California state court and sentenced to death. The California Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and sentence, People v. Garceau, 862 P.2d 664 (Cal. 1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 848 (1994), and denied his state…

Opinion by Judge TASHIMA; Concurrence by Judge THOMAS; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge O’SCANNLAIN.

Robert Garceau was convicted of a double homicide in California state court and sentenced to death. The California Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and sentence, People v. Garceau, 6 Cal.4th 140 , 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 664 , 862 P.2d 664 (1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 848 , 115 S.Ct. 144 , 130 L.Ed.2d 84 (1994), and denied his state habeas petition on the merits. He then filed a habeas petition in federal district court, raising 28 separate grounds for relief. In due course, he moved the district court for an evidentiary hearing on several of these claims. The district court denied his motion for an evidentiary hearing and later denied his petition. Garceau appeals the district court’s denial of an evidentiary hearing on four of his claims, as well as the district court’s denial of his petition on three of his claims. We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we reverse.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS

Robert Garceau was convicted in Kern County, California, of first degree murder for the September 1984 stabbing…

concurring:

I concur in Judge Tashima’s opinion. I write separately to note that, if we were not reversing on the grounds stated in the majority opinion, we would necessarily have to reverse and remand with instructions to the district court to hold an evi-dentiary hearing on Garceau’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during the sentencing phase. Indeed, the warden conceded as much during oral argument of this case.

We review the district court’s decision to deny an evidentiary hearing for an abuse of discretion. Lawson v. Borg, 60 F.3d 608, 611 (9th Cir.1995). In this case, the district court erred in denying Garceau’s request for an evidentiary hearing concerning his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase.

“To obtain an evidentiary hearing on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a habeas petitioner must establish that (1) his allegations, if proven, would constitute a colorable claim, thereby entitling him to relief and (2) the state court trier of fact has not, after a full and fair hearing, reliably found the relevant facts.” Correll v. Stewart, 137 F.3d 1404, 1411 (9th Cir. 1998). “In addition, ... if the petitioner has failed to…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I agree with Judge Thomas that we must “reverse and remand with instructions to the district court to hold an evi-dentiary hearing on Garceau’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during the sentencing phase”; indeed, even “the warden conceded as much during oral argument of this case.” Supra, Concurrence at 778 (Thomas, J., concurring). But the majority goes further, reversing and remanding with instructions to grant Garceau a writ of habeas corpus (unless California grants him a new trial) based on the “other crimes” jury instruction. Because I believe that even if the instruction might have violated Garceau’s due process rights any error was harmless under the deferential standard of Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993), I respectfully dissent.

I

The majority forthrightly admits that “the Supreme Court has never expressly held that ... it violates due process to admit other crimes evidence for other purposes without an instruction limiting the jury’s consideration of the evidence to such purposes.” Supra, Maj. Op. at 775. Nonetheless, the majority extends this court’s precedents to…