Lionel E. Gentry v. Ernie Roe, Warden Attorney General of the State of California

300 F.3d 1007 Lionel E. GENTRY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ernie ROE, Warden; Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees. No. 00-55691. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted July 9, 2002. Filed August 8, 2002. James H. Locklin, Deputy Federal Public Defender (argued), Los Angeles, CA, for the petitioner-appellant. Shawn McGahey Webb (argued and on the brief), Deputy Attorney General of the State of California, for the respondents-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; Edward Rafeedie, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-97-04867-ER-AN. Before: HUG, FARRIS and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge FARRIS; Dissent by Judge SILVERMAN. FARRIS, Circuit Judge. 1 We are asked to decide whether trial counsel's closing argument on behalf of petitioner Lionel Gentry constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Trial counsel's election to ignore evidence in the record that helped his client and to highlight record and non-record evidence that hurt his client cannot be defended as non-prejudicial "trial strategy." We therefore reverse his conviction with instructions to…

dissenting.

The majority frames the issue as follows: “We are asked to decide whether trial counsel’s closing argument on behalf of petitioner Lionel Gentry constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.” Opinion at 1009. With all due respect, that is not the issue at all. The sole question before us is whether the California Court of Appeal’s decision was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. This mistake goes a long way toward explaining why the majority says virtually nothing about the holding of the California Court of Appeal. It also explains why the majority analyzes this case as if it were reviewing a direct appeal of a federal criminal trial, instead of the denial of habeas relief to a state prisoner under § 2254.

It makes a big difference. Federal ha-beas relief is not available simply because a federal court concludes “that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly. Rather, that application must also be unreasonable.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 411 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000).

The California Court of Appeal…

Opinion by Judge FARRIS; Dissent by Judge SILVERMAN.

We are asked to decide whether trial counsel’s closing argument on behalf of petitioner Lionel Gentry constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Trial counsel’s election to ignore evidence in the record that helped his client and to highlight record and non-record evidence that hurt his client cannot be- defended as nonprejudicial “trial strategy.” We therefore reverse his conviction with instructions to grant the writ of habeas corpus unless the State chooses to retry Gentry.

I

There is no question that on April 30, 1994, Lionel Gentry stabbed his girlfriend Tanaysha Handy. The issue was whether he did so intentionally or accidentally.

A. The Prosecution’s Case

For a year and a half preceding the stabbing, Gentry and Handy lived together as boyfriend and girlfriend. At trial, Handy testified that on the fateful day she smoked crack cocaine and later went with Gentry to her aunt’s apartment. Once there, she and her aunt smoked cocaine. She then departed for another apartment in the building, a “crack house,” where she smoked more cocaine and drank liquor. Later that night, Gentry came to get her, they argued, and at…