Darris Young v. David L. Runnels, Warden

concurring:

In proceedings brought by the State Bar of California that began in August 1995, and concluded in June 1997, a state bar judge made these findings about the lawyer who in June 1997 represented Young in his state trial for armed robbery:

“While the Court appreciates the difficulty of representing oneself, it does not justify an attorney’s abandoning the most basic elements of appropriate courtroom behavior and engaging in disruptive and offensive conduct. Again,[she] seems to have no insight that such actions are inappropriate and must be curtailed.”

7. The state bar judge concluded:

“Respondent’s complete lack of insight into the wrongfulness of her actions is reprehensible. In vigorously defending her position, Respondent demonstrates that she does not fully appreciate the distinctions between right and wrong. Her erratic outbursts and lack of discernment during court proceedings constitute a danger to the public and to the legal profession.”

Despite these findings, the lawyer — as the state court of appeals remarked in Young’s case — remained “a fully licensed member of the bar” until she was formally disbarred on July 9,1997.

Subsequent to these proceedings,…

435 F.3d 1038 Darris YOUNG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David L. RUNNELS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. No. 03-16859. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted April 11, 2005. Filed January 23, 2006. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED A.J. Kutchins, Berkeley, CA, for the petitioner-appellant. Gregg E. Zywicke, Deputy Attorney General for the State of California, San Francisco, CA, 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-01-01427-SBA. Before FERGUSON, NOONAN, and RYMER, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge FERGUSON; Concurrence by Judge NOONAN. FERGUSON, Circuit Judge. 1 Petitioner-Appellant Darris Young, a California state prisoner, appeals the District Court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his conviction for armed robbery and felony evasion. Young contends that his trial attorney's disciplinary problems rendered her presumptively unable to provide effective assistance, thereby warranting a per se reversal of his conviction under United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 , 104 S.Ct. 2039 , 80 L.Ed.2d 657…

Petitioner-Appellant Darris Young, a California state prisoner, appeals the District Court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his conviction for armed robbery and felony evasion. Young contends that his trial attorney’s disciplinary problems rendered her presumptively unable to provide effective assistance, thereby warranting a per se reversal of his conviction under United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 , 104 S.Ct. 2039 , 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984). Young further contends that his trial attorney’s baseless lawsuit against various public officials, including the Alameda County District Attorney (DA), for allegedly participating in a pedophile ring created an actual conflict of interest under Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 , 100 S.Ct. 1708 , 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980). We uphold the state court’s resolution of Young’s ineffective assistance claim since Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), rather than Cronic , governs this claim, and Young fails to show prejudice under Strickland . Further, we find that Young has waived his conflict of interest claim by not raising it before the District Court. See Belgarde v. Montana,…