James F. Horton, II v. Deneice Mayle, Warden

Opinion by Judge RYMER; Opinion by Judge PAEZ; Dissent by Judge RYMER.

James F. Horton, II, a California state prisoner, appeals from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We agree with the magistrate judge’s analysis, adopted by the district court, and affirm on all issues except for Horton’s claim that his rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), were violated. As to that claim, the court reverses and remands in a separate opinion authored by Judge Paez.

I

Shortly after 2:30 p.m. on Monday, October 11, 1982, paramedics responded to a *574 call by Carolyn Ebel, the girlfriend of Her-sehel “Lobo” Bowser, who lived in an apartment on Artesia Boulevard in Los Angeles. They found Bowser lying unconscious on the floor, his head bleeding severely. A hammer was within a foot of the body near a pool of blood. Bowser died at the hospital later that day, having suffered twelve blunt injuries to the head and a fractured skull. The blows were consistent with force applied by the hammer. No fingerprints, blood, or DNA were found at the scene except for one print taken from a tool box, which matched the prints of…

dissenting in part.

We do not need to know whether or not Donald McLaurin had a deal that charges would not be pressed against him or his probation revoked for anything he did on the weekend of October 10th, 1 because even if there were a deal, evidence of it would not have changed the outcome of Horton’s trial. The California Supreme Court denied this claim on the merits, but as it did so without discussion, we independently review the record to determine whether its decision was objectively reasonable. See Delgado v. Lewis, 223 F.3d 976, 982 (9th Cir.2000); Pirtle v. Morgan, 313 F.3d 1160, 1167 (9th Cir.2002) (noting that although we independently review the record, we still defer to the state court’s ultimate decision). The district court assumed (as do I) that an undisclosed deal had been made, but rejected Horton’s Brady claim because the suppressed evidence was not material. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). I agree, and would hold that the state court’s decision was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established United States Supreme Court law.

*583 Evidence is material “if there is a reasonable probability…

408 F.3d 570 James F. HORTON, II, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Deneice MAYLE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. No. 03-56618. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted December 7, 2004. Filed May 10, 2005. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED Michael Rubin and Dorothea K. Langsam, Altshuler, Berzon, Nussbaum, Rubin & Demain, San Francisco, CA, for the petitioner-appellant. Lance E. Winters, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for the respondent-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; Mariana R. Pfaelzer, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-97-07298-MRP. Before B. FLETCHER, RYMER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge RYMER; Opinion by Judge PAEZ; Dissent by Judge RYMER. RYMER, Circuit Judge. 1 James F. Horton, II, a California state prisoner, appeals from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We agree with the magistrate judge's analysis, adopted by the district court, and affirm on all issues except for Horton's claim that his rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), were…