Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_97-cv-01731/USCOURTS-caed-2_97-cv-01731-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT M. FENENBOCK,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-97-1731 LKK CHS P

vs.

DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

 /////

Petitioner Robert Fenenbock is a state prisoner proceeding with counsel on a

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Fenenbock attacks his March

16, 1994 conviction in the Solano County Superior Court, case number C35712, for first-degree

murder. 

Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District

Courts (“Habeas Rules”) requires that the answer to the habeas petition “must [ ] indicate what

transcripts (of pretrial, trial, sentencing, or post-conviction proceedings) are available, when they

can be furnished, and what proceedings have been recorded but not transcribed,” and the

respondent “must attach to the answer parts of the transcript that the respondent considers

relevant.” Habeas Rule 5 also provides that, “[t]he judge may order that the respondent furnish

Case 2:97-cv-01731-LKK-CHS Document 161 Filed 03/22/10 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

other parts of existing transcripts or that parts of untranscribed recordings be transcribed and

furnished.” HAB. R. 5(c). Furthermore, pursuant to Habeas Rule 7, the court may direct that the

record be expanded by the parties to include additional materials relevant to the determination of

the merits of the petition. HAB. R. 7(a). 

In his third amended petition, Fenenbock raises a claim of actual innocence. In

support of his claim Fenenbock cites the testimony of one of his co-defendants, Bernard “Bird”

MacCarlie, from MacCarlie’s trial, a declaration from co-defendant Leafe Dodds, as well as the

testimony of Criminalist Carmel Suther, also from MacCarlie’s trial. 

However, in considering Fenenbock’s claim of actual innocence, the analysis is

not limited to the allegedly new evidence proffered by petitioner. See House v. Bell, 547 U.S.

518, 537-38 (2006) (applying less onerous Schlup gateway standard); Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S.

298, 327 (1995); Carriger v. Stewart, 132 F.3d 463, 478 (9th Cir. 1997). Rather, the reviewing

court “must consider all the evidence, old and new, incriminating and exculpatory, without

regard to whether it necessarily would be admitted under rules of admissibility that would

govern at trial.” House v. Bell, 547 U.S. at 538 (citations and internal quotations omitted).

Including Fenenbock, eight people (Robert Bond, Bernard MacCarlie, Leafe

Dodds, Robert Fenenbock, Anthony Lockley, Barbara Adcock, Cherri Frazier, and Sue Hamby)

were tried in connection with the events surrounding Fenenbock’s commitment offense. Those

eight persons were tried in three separate trials in front of four separate juries. 

After reviewing Fenenbock’s petition it is clear that, in addition to the transcripts

from Fenenbock’s trial that respondent has already lodged, the transcripts from the

Bond/MacCarlie/Dodds trial and from the Adcock/Lockley trial, are relevant to the

determination of the merits of his petition. However, the Bond/MacCarlie/Dodds trial transcripts

have already been provided in connection with petitions from those proceedings. 

/////

/////

Case 2:97-cv-01731-LKK-CHS Document 161 Filed 03/22/10 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

 Normally respondent would be given more time to lodge these transcripts. However

respondent, in answers to the petitions of Fenenbock’s co-defendants, has cited from these

transcripts and therefore is apparently already in possession of them. 

3

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Respondent lodge the entire transcripts from the trial of co-defendants Barbara

Adcock and Anthony “Tex” Lockley within 14 days of the date of this order.1

; and

2. Respondent file a notice of lodging transcripts from the

Bond/MacCarlie/Dodds trial within 14 days of the date of this order. In the interest of saving

resources, respondent need not lodge actual physical copies as the court is already in possession

of those documents. 

/////

DATED: March 22, 2010

Case 2:97-cv-01731-LKK-CHS Document 161 Filed 03/22/10 Page 3 of 3