N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
KEELON T. JENKINS, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt,
v. M IC HAEL S. EVANS, W a rde n, R

e sponde n t - Appe lle e . No. 11-15030

D.C . No. 3:05-c v-02003-M HP

M EM O R ANDUM *

O n R e m and from

the En B anc C ourt B e fore : WALLAC E, FAR R IS, and B YB EE, C i rc uit Judge s. B e fore us on re m and from the e n ba nc c ourt is Je nkins’ s c l a im tha t his tria l
c ounse l re nde re d ine ffe c tive a s sista nc e , “ whic h is ba se d on his a l le gation tha t tria l
c ounse l atta c ke d Je nkins’ s c re dibility at tria l.” Mc

Danie ls v . K

irk land, 627 Fe d. Appx. 672, 673 (9th C i r. 2015) (unpublishe d disposition). Our re vie w is gove rne d by the Antite rrorism and Effe c tive De ath Pe na lty Ac t of 1996 (AEDPA). Unde r AEDPA, we are lim ite d to de c iding whe the r the C a lifornia Supre m e C o urt’ s sum

m ary de n i a l of ha

b e a s re l ie f wa s: (1) “ c ontra ry to, 

# FIL ED
OCT 14 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.or involve d a n unre a sona

ble a pplic ation of, c le arly

e sta b l ishe d Fe de ra l la

w , a s de te rm i ne d by

the Supre m e C ourt of the Unite d State s” ; or (2) “b a se d on a n
unre a s ona

ble de te rm i nation of thefa c ts in light of the e vide nc e pre se nte d in the Stat e c ourt proc e e ding.” 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1)–(2). W h e n re vie w ing a

n ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e c la im through thele ns of ha

be a s , our re vie w is “ d oubly de fe re ntia l.” Yarborough v . Ge ntry , 540 U.S. 1, 6 (2003) (per c uriam ). “ The pivota l que stion is whe the r the sta te c ourt’ s a

pplic ation of the Stric k

land sta nda rd
wa s unre a sona

b le
. This is diffe re nt from a sking whe the r de fe nse c ounse l’ s pe rform a nc e fe ll be low Stric k

land ’ s sta nda rd.” Harrington v

. Ric h te r , 562 U.S. 86, 101 (2011). Unde r this sta

nda rd of re vie w, we hold tha t the C a lifornia

Supre m e C ourt did not unre a sona

bly a pply Stric k

land in sum m arily de ny ing Je nkins’ s ine ffe c tive
a ssista nc e c la im . Je nkins’ s c la im of ine ffe c t ive a ssista

nc e is gove rne d by

the fam ilia r two-pa rt ine ffe c tive a s sista

nc e of c ounse l te st provide d by the Supre m e C ourt in Stric k

land v . W a shington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Unde r that sta nda rd, Je nkins m ust first show tha

t “ c ounse l’ s re pre se ntation fe ll be low a n obje c tive sta nda rd of re a sona

ble ne ss.” Id. at 688. Eve n if we a s sum e tha t Je nkins’ s attorne y unde rm ine d Je nkins’ s c re dibility (whic h the State c onte sts), the C a l ifornia Supre m e C ourt c ould ha

v e re a s ona

bly de c i de d tha

t c ounse l did not pe rform de fic ie ntly
. Se e Yarborough v . Ge ntry , 540 U.S. 1, 6 (2003) (per c uriam ) (re je c tingan ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l c la i m whe re an attorne y c a lle d his c lie nt a

“ ba d pe rson, lousy

drug a ddic t, stinking thie f, [and] ja i l bird” ). M ore ove r, e ve n if
c ounse l pe rform e d de fic ie ntly , the C a l ifornia Supre m e C ourt c ould ha

ve re je c te d Je nkins’ s c la im

be c a use he fa i le d to e sta

blish tha t “ the re is a

re a sona ble proba bility that , but for c ounse l 's unprofe ssiona l e rrors, the re sult of theproc e e ding would have be e n diffe re nt.” Stric k

l and , 466 U.S. a

t 694. W e the re fore a ffirm the distric t
c ourt’ s de c ision de ny ing Je nkins’ s c la im
. Je nkins’ s m otion for le av e to file his supple m e nta l brie f is gra nte d
. AFFIRM E D.J

e nk ins v . Ev ans , No. 11-15030 B YB EE, C irc uit Judge , disse nting: At Pe titione r Ke e lon Je nkins’ s m urde r tria l, a

voc a l a n d dram atic dispute be twe e n Je nkins a

nd his la wy e r pla y e d out in front of the

jury . Je nkins a

nd his
c ounse l a gre e d tha

t Je nkins shot a

B rink’ s truc k gua

rd a fte r what he be lie ve d to be
a sta ge d robbe ry

we nt a wry , 1 but disa gre e d a s to the ide ntity of the m an who
orc h e s trate d tha

t hold-up: Jenkins m a inta ine d— and te stifie d at tria l— that a m an
nam e d Frank Va le ntine hatc he d the plot, while Je nkins’ s c o unse l re pe ate dly told the j ury tha t a m an n a m e d Anthony

Young wa s re sponsible . Although I re c ogniz e that , unde r AEDPA, our re vie w of Je nkins’ s ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e c la i m is “ doubly de fe re ntia l,” K

now le s v . Mirzay anc e , 556 U.S. 111, 123 (2009), I none t he le ss think Je nkins ha s shown tha

t “ the sta te c o urt’ s a

pplic ation of the Stric k

land [ v . W ashington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984)] sta nda rd wa s unre a sona

b le ,” Harrington v

. Ric h te r , 562 U.S. 86, 101 (2011). Ac c ordingly , I would gra nt Je nkins’ s ha

be a s pe tition a nd I re spe c tfully

disse nt from

m y c olle a gue s’ de c ision holding othe rwise
. 

# FIL ED
OCT 14 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

1 The de fe nse the ory

wa s tha t Je nkins ha d be e n inform e d by the m an tha t c oordina te d the sta ge d robbe ry

tha t the B rinks gua

rd wa s in on theplot a

nd would he lp fa c ilita

te the the ft of m one y

from his truc k in e xc ha

nge for a c ut of the loot. B e c a use Je nkins be lie ve d tha

t the robbe ry

wa s sta ge d , the de fe nse te am posite d, he ha d not c om

m itte d m urde r during the c om

m ission of a

fe l ony and wa s the re fore not lia b le for first-de gre e m

urde r unde r the fe l ony -m

urde r rule
.I

The c onflic t be twe e n Je nkins a nd his c o unse l ove r the ide ntity of the m an who m a ste rm inde d the robbe ry re pe ate dly

surfa c e d be fore and during the

tria l. For
e xam ple , be fore his c ounse l c ould offe r an ope ning sta t e m e nt to thejury , Je nkins obje c te d a

nd e xpla ine d: I’ ve re pe a t e dly

told c ounse l tha

t I don’ t wa

n t him to give a sta te m e nt that . . . [a c c use s] som e one I’ ve told him num e rous tim e s tha

t ha s no involve m e nt[.] . . . W

hat he ’ s doing is c ontra dic ting m y te stim o ny whic h is going aga inst m e . The re fore , he ’ s se rving a s the prose c ution a ga inst m y de fe nse if he ’ s going to do this. The c ourt ove rrule d Je nkins’ s obje c tion a n d a llowe d his c ounse l to proc e e d with ope ning sta

te m e n ts— a

sta te m e nt c ounse l de sc ribe d to the jury a s “ unc o nditiona lly
una uthoriz e d by

[his] c lie n t who [did] not wa nt [him ] to m ake this sta

te m e nt.” Je nkins’ s c ounse l the n pointe d the finge r at Anthony

Young, inform e d the jury tha t thre e witne sse s would te stify to Young’ s involve m e n t in the sta ge d hold-up, a nd
e xplic itly pre pa re d the jury

to he ar te stim ony

from his c lie nt c ontra d ic ting the the o ry tha t he ha d just laid out. As prom ise d, Je nkins provide d te s tim ony at odds with his c ounse l’ s ope ning sta te m e nt, e xpla ining tha

t Va le n tine m a ste rm inde d the robbe ry -gone -wrong a

nd de ny i ng tha

t Young wa s involve d. 2 De spite his

2 R obe rt M c Danie ls, Je nkins’ s c o-de fe nda nt, a lso te s tifie d tha

t Young ha d no involve m e nt a

n d tha t Va le ntine pla

nne d the robbe ry . 2re pre se ntations to the c ontra ry , howe ve r, Je nkins’ s c ounse l did not follow through with thepre se ntat ion of e vide nc e c onne c t ing Young— ra the r tha n Va le ntine

—

to the p lot. B y c losing a rgum e nts, the prose c utor ha d ke y e d into this c onflic t, fram ing the t ria l a s “ a ll a

bout c re dibility ,” and ripping into the disa gre e m e nt be twe e n Je nkins a nd his c ounse l: And the proble m

I wa s ha ving is tha

t I’ m he aring too m a

ny m a ste rm inds. I’ m

he aring Anthony Young, the n I’ m he aring Fra

nk Va le ntine , a

nd the n in [de fe nse c ounse l ’ s] ope ning sta t e m e nt he told y ou he prove d se ve ra l things tha t he wa s not a

ble to prove [like ] Anthony Young wa s the m a ste rm ind.

. . . [And tha t’ s] be c a u se som e whe re m idstre am Frank Va le ntine c am e into thepic ture . And he re ’ s a sim ple que stion: How many innoc e n t pe ople hav e two diffe re nt de fe nse s? How m a ny innoc e nt pe ople have diffe re nt the orie s on how the y got to tha

t loc ation? This is c le a

rly a sc hism som e whe re in the de fe nse .

. . . [De fe nse c ounse l] m a de a ve ry inte re sting c o m

m e nt y e ste rday

whe n he sa id he frankly

didn’ t be l ie ve his c lie nt in tha t Frank Va le ntine wa s the m a ste rm ind. The re a son why I find tha t inte re sting is be c a

u se if M r. Je nkins is going to lie to his a ttorne y , what m ake s y ou think he ’ s not willing to lie

to y ou be c a

use c l e arly

the y have diffe re nt opinions a s to how to be a t this c a se . For his pa rt, Je nkins’ s c ounse l double d down during his c losing a rgum e nt on the d isc re pa

nc y , re m inding thejury

onc e a g a in tha

t he thought his c lie nt wa s ly ing on the witne ss sta

n d :
3The re are a num be r of the orie s of why

[the de fe n da

nts] we nt [to the sc e ne of the robbe ry ] . One is wha t the y told y ou. Now, if y ou think that I be lie ve e v e ry thing tha t the y sa i d, y ou a lre a dy

know the answe r to tha t be c a use I sta rte d in m y ope n ing sta

te m e n t by te lling y ou tha

t I be lie ve the pe rson who se t this up is som e one othe r tha

n the pe rson a bout whom

the y te stifie d. And I’ ve ha d disa g re e m e nts with m

y c lie nt a bout tha t for y e a rs. None the le ss, I be l ie ve tha t only be c a u se of the e vide nc e in this c a se . The jury re t urne d with a

c onvic tion for first-de gre e m urde r and the c o urt
se nte nc e d Je nkins to life in prison without the possibility

of pa role . In a sum m ary de nia l, the C a lifornia

Supre m e C ourt re

je c te d Je nkins’ s ha

be a s pe tition ra ising the ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e c la im now be fore us.

II The m a jority holds tha t “ the C a lifornia

Supre m e C ourt c ould ha

ve
re a s ona bly de c ide d tha

t c ounse l did not pe rform de fic ie ntly .” M e m . Dispo. 3. I disa gre e . Je nkins’ s c ounse l e sse ntia lly c a lle d his c lie nt a

lia r in his ope ning a

nd
c losing sta

te m e nts, a

nd c om ple te ly unde rm ine d Je nkins’ s te stim o ny an d c re dibility in front of thejury . And for wha t? As the prose c utor pointe d out, Je nkins’ s
c ounse l didn’ t e ve n put up the e vide nc e he prom ise d to bring forwa rd tha t would show tha t it wa s Young—

not Va le ntine

—

w ho m a ste rm inde d the sta ge d robbe ry . It is one thing to de fe r to the g o od-fa ith stra te g ic de c isions of c ounse l; it is a ve ry diffe re nt thing to en dorse c ounse l’ s de c ision to pre se nt a the ory of de fe nse tha

t he

4did not prove and tha t e xplic i tly

c ontra dic te d the te stim ony put forwa

rd by his
c lie nt. B e c a

use Je nkins’ s c ounse l im

p e a c he d the c re dibility

of his own c lie nt without offe ring a lte rnative e v ide nc e to re pa ir the dam a ge he c a use d, I think
c ounse l’ s pe rform an c e fe ll be low a n obje c tive sta

nda rd of re a sona

b le ne ss. I a lso think it is c le ar that c ounse l’ s ina de quate pe rform anc e pre judic e d Je nkins’ s de fe nse . The Supre m e C ourt ha s e xpla ine d tha t to de m onstra

te pre j udic e , “ [t] he de fe nda

nt m ust show tha

t the re is a re a sona

ble proba bility tha t, but for c ounse l’ s unprofe ssiona l e rrors, the re sult of theproc e e ding would ha ve be e n diffe re nt,” and de fine d “ a re a sona

ble proba bility ” a s “ a

proba bility suffic ie nt to unde rm ine c onfide nc e in the outc om e .” Stric k land, 466 U.S. a

t 694. He re , the jury re quire d thre e da

y s of de l ibe ra tions to re a c h a ve rdic t on fa c ts tha t— s ave for the s ta g e d -robbe ry

/fe lony -m urde r que stion—

we re re lat ive ly

stra ightforwa

rd. Additiona lly , a s outline d a bove , the prose c utor c a

pita liz e d on the c o nflic t be twe e n Je nkins a nd his c ounse l, re pe ate dly c a lling Je nkins’ s truthfulne ss into que stion a nd
m aking “ c re dibility ” the c e nte rpie c e of his c a se and his c l osing a rgum e nt. Fina lly , be c a use Je nkins’ s c ounse l de c ide d to de stroy his c lie nt’ s de fe n se the o ry without providing a

n a l te rnate t

he ory in its pla c e , he le ft Je nkins without m uc h of a de fe nse
a t a ll. Unde r the se fa c ts— and e ve n c onside ring AEDPA’ s de m anding sta nda rd of
re vie w— I think Je nkins ha s a de quate ly de m onstra

te d tha t his c ounse l’ s a c tions 5have “ unde rm ine [d] c onfide nc e in the outc o m e ” of his tria l. Id
.

I re spe c tfully

disse nt. 3

3 I c onc ur, howe ve r, in them a jority ’ s de c ision to gra

nt Je nkins’ s m otion for le ave to file his supple m e nta l brie f. 6