Steven Martell Collins v. Bertram Rice Attorney General of the State of California

Opinion by Judge PAEZ; Dissent by Judge CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL

OPINION

Steven Collins appeals the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. During jury selection prior to his state court trial for possession of a controlled substance, Collins, an African-American male, alleged that race motivated the prosecutor’s peremptory strikes against two African-American women in the jury venire in violation of People v. Wheeler, 1 but the state trial court rejected Collins’ Wheeler motion. The jury found him guilty of the possession charge and also found that Collins had been convicted of robbery and forcible rape in 1982. Accordingly, with three felony convictions, the court sentenced him to a three strikes term of twenty-five years to life in state prison. 2 The California Court of Appeal affirmed *1085 his conviction and sentence, and the California Supreme Court denied both Collins’ petition for review and his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we conclude that the California Court of Appeal’s decision that the prosecutor did not engage in purposeful discrimination during jury…

Judge, dissenting:

The state trial court determined that the prosecutor’s proffered race-neutral justifications for striking Juror 016 were credible. This conclusion is entitled to “great deference,” Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 364 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991), and may not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous. Id. at 369 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 ; see also Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 , 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1041 , 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003) (reasoning that because an appellate court has access only to the trial transcript, it is “not as well positioned as the trial court is to make credibility determinations.”). Applying this deferential standard, the California Court of Appeal found that the trial court did not err. Because this case is governed by AEDPA, we must defer to the California Court of Appeal’s conclusion unless contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court precedent, or premised on an unreasonable factual finding. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d).

The majority does not defer to the California Court of Appeal. According to the majority, deference is unwarranted because the Court of Appeal’s decision rests upon the…

348 F.3d 1082 Steven Martell COLLINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Bertram RICE; Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees. No. 01-56958. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted June 5, 2003 — Pasadena, California. Filed November 7, 2003. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED Karyn H. Bucur, Laguna Hills, CA, argued the case for the appellant. Erika D. Jackson, Deputy Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, argued the case for the appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; Terry J. Hatter, Chief District Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. CV-98-09329-TJH. Before: HALL, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge PAEZ; Dissent by Judge CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL OPINION PAEZ, Circuit Judge: 1 Steven Collins appeals the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. During jury selection prior to his state court trial for possession of a controlled substance, Collins, an African-American male, alleged that race motivated the prosecutor's peremptory strikes against two African-American women in the jury venire in violation of People v. Wheeler, 1 but…