Opinion ID: 704024
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: McKenna's Other Claims for Relief

Text: 31 In his cross-appeal, McKenna challenges the district court's denial of his other grounds for habeas corpus relief. Specifically, McKenna contends the district court erred by denying relief for: 1) the trial court's refusal to admit McKenna's autobiography as mitigating evidence in the penalty phase of his trial; 2) his claims of prosecutorial misconduct; 3) the trial court's denial of McKenna's motion for a new trial based on new evidence; and 4) his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on direct appeal. 32 We review de novo the decision to grant or deny a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Thomas v. Brewer, 923 F.2d 1361, 1364 (9th Cir.1991). State court findings of fact are entitled to deference under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254(d), and we review the federal district court's findings of fact for clear error. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 698, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2070, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Because ineffective assistance of counsel claims are mixed questions of law and fact, we review them de novo. United States v. Birtle, 792 F.2d 846, 847 (9th Cir.1986). In reviewing claims of trial error on habeas review, we must determine whether the alleged errors had substantial and injurious affect or influence on the jury's verdict. Brecht v. Abrahamson, --- U.S. ----, ---- - ----, ----, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 1716-17, 1721, 123 L.Ed.2d 353, 367, 373 (1993). Habeas petitioners are not entitled to habeas relief based on trial error unless they can establish that it resulted in actual prejudice. O'Neal v. McAninch, --- U.S. ----, ---- - ----, 115 S.Ct. 992, 994-95, 130 L.Ed.2d 947 (1995). It is the responsibility of the court, once it concludes there was error, to determine whether the error affected the judgment. If the court is left in grave doubt, the conviction cannot stand. Id.
33 At the penalty phase of his trial, McKenna sought to reopen his case and introduce the first six chapters of his autobiography as mitigating evidence. Although we hold that McKenna's sentence of death cannot be upheld unless it is done in a resentencing proceeding that eliminates consideration of the invalid aggravating factor, this issue remains pertinent in the event the Nevada Supreme Court engages in a reweighing process. 34 McKenna claimed the autobiography would show: 1) his difficult childhood; 2) his negative experiences with juvenile corrections authorities; and 3) his ability to contribute to society as a writer. The trial court refused to admit the biography. On direct appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision. McKenna, 705 P.2d at 620-21. McKenna asserts that these decisions violated his Eighth Amendment right to individualized sentencing. 35 The Supreme court stated in Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 110, 102 S.Ct. 869, 874, 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982) that in considering the death penalty,  'the sentencer [may] not be precluded from considering, as a mitigating factor, any aspect of a defendant's character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense that the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death.'  (quoting Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 604, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 2964-65, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978) (emphasis in original)). Although a defendant is entitled to present this substantive evidence, this does not entitle the defendant to present it through any means he chooses. McKenna was certainly entitled to present evidence of his difficult childhood, his negative experiences with juvenile authorities, and his writing ability through his own testimony and that of other witnesses. This does not mean it was constitutional error not to allow him to do so through his own written autobiography. McKenna did not choose to testify as to these facts, although he was not precluded from doing so. Other witnesses appearing on his behalf testified as to the substance of the facts contained in the autobiography, and the State conceded his writing ability. The autobiography, itself, would have been cumulative. Its exclusion from the hearing was not constitutional error and was not prejudicial.
36 McKenna asserts two grounds of prosecutorial misconduct. The first relates to the guilt phase of the trial; the second relates to the penalty phase.
37 McKenna contends that the prosecution violated Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976), by commenting on McKenna's silence after he was arrested and given his Miranda warning. The factual basis for the argument is the testimony elicited from Detective Burton Levos, who conducted the investigation into the murder of Nobles. Detective Levos testified about two separate interviews with McKenna. The first was on January 6, 1979, the day of the murder. Detective Levos testified he had given McKenna a Miranda warning and had him sign a card acknowledging his rights. The prosecutor asked Detective Levos whether he had then conducted a short interview with McKenna. Detective Levos responded: 38 Yes. I asked him whether he could tell me about the death of J. Nobles. He said, I don't want to talk about it. I don't want to implicate anybody and I won't give you a written statement. 39 The second interview took place on January 8, 1979, two days after McKenna was arrested for the murder. The interview was initiated by a letter from McKenna to Detective Levos, stating that he wanted to make a deal. Detective Levos testified that he asked McKenna Are you involved in the case of the jail in reference to Nobles's murder? He further testified that when this question was put to McKenna, McKenna looked at him, nodded yes, and smiled. On direct appeal, McKenna argued that the response at the January 8 interview was privileged as a plea negotiation. He does not renew that argument here. 40 McKenna's current argument relates solely to the first interview on January 6 and a claim that the testimony elicited on that date constituted Doyle error. The precise issue presented in Doyle was whether a prosecutor could use a defendant's post-arrest silence to impeach the defendant's exculpatory testimony. 426 U.S. at 616, 96 S.Ct. at 2243-44. The Court held that in light of Miranda 's explicit recognition that one has a constitutional right to remain silent, the prosecutor could not use the defendant's decision to exercise that right as a tool of impeachment. Id. at 617, 96 S.Ct. at 2244. McKenna argues that the state violated Doyle when the prosecutor elicited Levos's testimony concerning McKenna's response at the January 6 interview. McKenna further contends that it was error when the prosecutor, in his closing argument, commented on this testimony, stating: 41 He [Levos] advised Mr. McKenna of his Constitutional rights and they then had a short interview and Mr. McKenna suggested he had information but he didn't want to talk about who killed Nobles. In fact, he said he didn't want to give any kind of written statement. 42 Because no objection or motion to strike was made either to the testimony or the closing argument, we review for plain error. The testimony of Detective Levos and the prosecutor's comment thereon do not constitute Doyle error. McKenna did not remain silent. More importantly, there is nothing in his response on January 6 that indicates any sort of admission of guilt. Instead, it indicates a desire not to implicate someone else. Thus, even if it were error it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
43 McKenna alleges that the prosecution made an intentional and prejudicial misstatement of the law in summation to the jury during the penalty phase of the trial. Because we hold that McKenna must be resentenced either by the court or at a new penalty hearing, any error that may have occurred will not be of consequence.
44 Five months after McKenna's conviction and sentence, attorney Ken McKenna obtained a handwritten statement from Rossi, who was then incarcerated in Idaho, recanting his testimony and contending that he was pressured into giving it. The trial court heard argument and then denied the motion. In evaluating Rossi's recantation, a court obviously considers the strength of that assertion in light of the impeachment that would result from any such testimony. In this case, the impeaching evidence would be very strong. Rossi would had to have committed perjury on three separate occasions: the preliminary hearing, the first trial, and the second trial. In light of this history, it is questionable what Rossi's testimony might actually be when the time came down to a new trial. Furthermore, the other evidence of McKenna's guilt was very strong. Under the Brecht standard, the denial of the new trial was not error and did not result in prejudice to McKenna.
45 McKenna argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on his direct appeal, thus, violating his Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial. In analyzing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, our overriding concern is to determine whether counsel's conduct so undermined the functioning of the adversary process that the trial cannot be relied upon as having produced a just result. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2063-64, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). 46 First, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the counsel guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable. Unless a defendant makes both showings, it cannot be said that the conviction or death sentence resulted from a breakdown in the adversary process that renders the result unreliable. 47 Id. at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064. Review of counsel's performance is highly deferential, and we must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. Id. at 689, 104 S.Ct. at 2065.
48 McKenna argues that the State interfered with his counsel's ability to assist him at trial by effectively driving away the only experienced member of the defense team when the county failed to advance expenses to attorney Kent Robison. He contends that this left him with only the assistance of his inexperienced brother, attorney Ken McKenna, and another slightly more experienced attorney, Bruce Beesley. 49 McKenna had initially requested that his brother be appointed to represent him. His brother sought the assistance of Kent Robison, a more seasoned defense attorney, to perform as co-counsel. The trial court appointed Ken McKenna and Robison to perform as co-counsel. On the second day of voir dire, Robison was informed that the county would not make cash advances for travel and lodging. Robison, claiming financial hardship to his law firm, sought and was granted withdrawal from the case. Robison later sent Bruce Beesley, an associate from his firm, to assist McKenna at trial. Ken McKenna was left for three days as the only attorney for the defense. 50 The Nevada Supreme Court found that counsel withdrew not because the county denied him compensation, but merely because the county declined to compensate him in advance. In seeking to withdraw from representing a client charged with murder after the trial has started because the county would not advance his expenses, attorney Robison has demonstrated ethical standards that fall far short of responsible professional conduct. It is also difficult to understand why a state trial court would grant such a request when the result was to leave McKenna's defense in the hands of inexperienced counsel. Our inquiry, however, is to determine whether the performance of the remaining counsel was constitutionally deficient and prejudicial. 51 McKenna asserts that the County's refusal to advance costs constitutes state interference with counsel that creates a mandatory presumption of prejudice. McKenna relies on the following statement from Strickland: Actual or constructive denial of assistance of counsel altogether is legally presumed to result in prejudice. So are various kinds of state interference with counsel's assistance. 466 U.S. at 692, 104 S.Ct. at 2067 (citing United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 659, n. 25, 104 S.Ct. 2039, 2047, n. 25, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1983)). In Cronic, the Court described the type of situation from which prejudice is presumed. When counsel is totally absent, is prevented from assisting the accused at a critical stage of the proceeding, or when counsel entirely fails to subject the prosecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing, we will presume prejudice. Cronic, 466 U.S. at 659 & n. 25, 104 S.Ct. at 2047 & n. 25. 52 None of these situations apply here. Counsel was never totally absent or absent at a critical stage. McKenna was at all times represented by counsel. One of McKenna's counsel, Kent Robison, chose to withdraw because he was not satisfied with the financial arrangements. The remaining counsel were not prevented from assisting McKenna, nor were they interfered with in any way. 53 These attorneys, though inexperienced, did have the advantage of being able to review a complete prior trial record, where experienced trial counsel represented McKenna. The question is whether the representation given by these attorneys was deficient and whether any deficiencies in performance were prejudicial. 54
55 At trial, counsel sought to call inmate Frank DePalma as a defense witness. DePalma was expected to testify that the victim had violent propensities and, on the night of the murder, he saw McKenna locked in a different cell than the one where the victim was found. The trial court refused to allow DePalma to testify, stating that he was an alibi witness and counsel had not filed a notice of alibi ten days prior to trial as required by NRS 174.087. The record shows that the required notice would had to have been filed during the time Kent Robison was still participating as co-counsel. All three defense attorneys were questioned as to why a notice of alibi witness was not filed. Both Robison and Beesley were unaware of the existence of a potential alibi witness. Attorney McKenna stated that he was aware of the witness but was unaware of the procedural advance notice requirement. 56 Assuming that the failure to file the advance notice of an alibi witness was deficient performance, we conclude that this failure was not so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064. On the evening of January 5, 1979, McKenna was housed in cell 4A2 with Rossi, Denson, and Nobles. The next day, January 6, at 7:25 a.m., the body of Nobles was discovered in cell 4A2. The cause of death was asphyxia from ligature strangulation. The estimated time of death was between the late evening hours of January 5 and the early morning of January 6. 57 Two eye witnesses, Rossi and Jones, not only saw McKenna in cell 4A2, but witnessed the murder. Cellmate Denson testified that the next morning, before prison officials had discovered that Nobles was dead, McKenna asked him to pass a homemade knife wrapped with fabric ligature to Harris, another inmate; Harris testified that he received this weapon. 58 In light of this overwhelming evidence and McKenna's own adoptive admission, we conclude that DePalma's expected testimony that he had seen McKenna playing poker in another cell would not have been given credence or affected the verdict. 59
60 McKenna contends that counsel was ineffective in failing to object to Detective Levos's testimony concerning his first interview with McKenna because the testimony constituted Doyle error. As we earlier discussed in section IIB1, this testimony did not constitute Doyle error and was not prejudicial and, thus, this claim is unavailing. 61
62 Report. 63 In questioning the medical examiner, counsel did not seek admission into evidence of a toxicology report showing that the victim had morphine in his bloodstream at the time of his death. McKenna argues that this evidence would have lessened sympathy for the victim. We conclude that this does not constitute deficient performance nor prejudice under the Strickland standard. 64
65 Defense counsel did not perfect its appeal from the order denying a new trial based on Rossi's recantation of his testimony. First, we note that there was no prejudice from the failure to appeal because it was fully considered by the Nevada Supreme Court on the habeas petition. Furthermore, as we concluded in section IIC, the denial of a new trial was not constitutional error.
66 McKenna contends that the brief on direct appeal was prepared by a law clerk with inadequate supervision or review by appellate counsel. The issue is not how the brief was prepared, but the adequacy of the brief. McKenna has failed to identify any deficiencies that could have affected the outcome of the appeal. This does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.