N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
VALER IE E. C AM PB ELL,

Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. GLOR IA HENR

Y , R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . No. 15-17157 D.C . No. 3:06-c v-02225-C RB
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia C ha rle s R . B re y e r, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 10, 2018 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd R AW LINSON a

nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s . The distric t c ourt prope rly de nie d Va le rie C a

m pbe ll’ s pe tition for a

writ of ha be a s c orpus. C am

pbe ll c annot show tha

t the sta t e c ourt’ s de c ision re

je c ting he r ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l c la i m

wa s c ontra

ry to or ba se d on a

n 

# FIL ED
JAN 16 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).Pa ge 2 of 3

unre a s ona

ble a p plic a tion of fe de ra l la

w. Eve n a ssum ing tha

t tria l c ounse l ’ s fa ilure to introduc e Andre a

Johnson’ s dy ing de c la

ra tion c onstitute d

de fic ie nt pe rform anc e , the re c ord supports the sta t e c ourt’ s c onc lusion tha

t c ounse l ’ s e rror wa s not pre j udic i a l. At tria l, the prose c ution a lle ge d tha t C am pbe ll wa s a dire c t pe rpe tra tor, but it
a lte rna tive ly

argue d tha

t C am pbe ll wa s guilty of e a c h offe n se be c a use she a ide d
and a be tte d he r boy frie nd, C arl Sam pson. Unde r that the ory , e vide nc e tha t Sa m pson ra the r tha n C am pbe ll shot the

vic tim doe s not e x c ulpa

te C a m p be ll. Give n the a dditiona l e vide nc e of C am pbe ll’ s involve m e nt, the sta te c ourt c ould
c onc lude tha

t it is not “

re a s ona bly like ly ” tha

t the introduc tion of Johnson’ s sta te m e nt would ha

ve re s ulte d in a

diffe re nt outc om e . H

arrington v . Ric hte r , 562 U.S. 86, 111 (2011). Nor did the sta

te c ourt unre a sona

bly a pply fe de ra l la w whe n it de te rm ine d that the re wa s suffic ie nt e vide nc e to uphold C am pbe l l’ s first-de g re e m

urde r
c onvic tion unde r the the o ry tha t C am pbe ll wa s a

dire c t pe rpe tra tor. The re wa s strong e vide nc e of pre m e dita tion a nd de libe ra tion. In them onths be fore the shooting, C am

pbe ll a nd Sam pson ha d re pe a te dly

thre a te ne d Johnson a

nd Johnson’ s girlfrie n d, Je we ll Sutton. After le arning tha t Johnson a

nd Sutton we re visiting a hom e ne arby , C am

pbe ll a nd Sam pson a rrive d at the hom e arm e d withPa ge 3 of 3

we a pons. Sutton te stifie d tha t she sa w C am pbe ll holding a gun, a

nd Sam pson
c arrie d an Uz i. Although Sa

m p son fire d his Uz i at Johnson, a ba llistic s e xpe rt te stifie d tha

t the fa ta l bulle ts c am e from a .38 ha ndgun. Vie wing the e vide nc e in the l ight m ost fa

vora ble to the g ove rnm e n t, se e J a c k s on v . Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979), thesta

te c o urt c ould re a sona

bly c onc lude that suffic ie nt e vide nc e supporte d C am

pbe ll’ s first-de gre e m

urde r c onvic t ion a s a

dire c t pe rpe tra tor. AFFIRM E D
.