Anthony Alexander Campbell v. Bert Rice

408 F.3d 1166 Anthony Alexander CAMPBELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Bert RICE, Respondent-Appellee. No. 99-17311. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted En Banc December 15, 2004. Filed May 20, 2005. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED Howard M. Ullman (argued), Walter F. Brown, Jr., San Francisco, CA, for the petitioner-appellant. Peggy S. Ruffra (argued), John R. Vance, Jr., Office of the Attorney General, State of California, for the respondent-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Saundra B. Armstrong, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-98-03265-SBA. Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, FERGUSON, REINHARDT, RYMER, KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, GRABER, WARDLAW, GOULD, CLIFTON and JAY S. BYBEE, Circuit Judges. CLIFTON, Circuit Judge: Petitioner Anthony Alexander Campbell appeals the denial by the district court of his petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . Petitioner challenges his California state court burglary conviction on two grounds. He argues that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance because of a conflict of interest: she was being prosecuted at the same time by the same…

Petitioner Anthony Alexander Campbell appeals the denial by the district court of his petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . Petitioner challenges his California state court burglary conviction on two grounds. He argues that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance because of a conflict of interest: she was being prosecuted at the same time by the same district attorney’s office. In addition, he maintains that the trial court violated his due process rights by excluding him from an in-chambers meeting attended by the trial judge, the prosecutor, and his defense attorney, during which the court was informed of the prosecution of the defense attorney and concluded that the attorney did not have a conflict of interest. When presented with these arguments, the California state courts denied relief to Petitioner. Applying the deferential standard of review established under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), we affirm the district court’s denial of the habeas petition.

I. BACKGROUND

On May 26, 1995, the police arrested Petitioner while he was attempting to burglarize a home. After he consented to a search of his vehicle, the…

dissenting:

Prosecutors in the Ninth Circuit may now deliberately mislead judgés about matters that are of vital importance to our judicial system. In affirming the denial of Campbell’s habeas corpus petition, the majority ignores the factual record in this case, the prosecutor’s and the defense counsel’s deceptive maneuvering before trial, and Campbell’s Sixth Amendment right to select counsel of his choice.

I.

On the first day of Campbell’s trial, the state trial judge met in-chambers with Campbell’s retained counsel, Maureen McCann (“McCann”), and the Santa Clara County Deputy District Attorney Ralph Dixon (“Dixon”), who was prosecuting Campbell. Campbell was neither present at the in-chambers hearing nor was he informed of it.

The full extent of the in-chambers hearing went as follows:

In the span of less than a few minutes, Dixon (1) excluded Campbell from an in-chambers hearing that violated Campbell’s constitutional rights, (2) deliberately withheld from the trial judge material facts pertaining to McCann’s criminal history, and (3) colluded with McCann to deny Campbell the opportunity to consider retaining other counsel of his choice.

The record reveals several…