Benson v. Chappell
Decision Date | 01 May 2020 |
Docket Number | No. 13-99004,13-99004 |
Citation | 958 F.3d 801 |
Parties | Richard Allen BENSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Kevin CHAPPELL, Warden, San Quentin State Prison, Respondent-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
In 1986, Richard Allen Benson confessed to sexually molesting two little girls and murdering the girls, their mother, and their baby brother. He was tried and convicted for murder and other crimes and sentenced to death. After his conviction and sentence were affirmed and the California Supreme Court had denied several habeas petitions, Benson filed a federal habeas petition with the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The district court denied the petition and Benson has appealed.
On appeal Benson raises two certified claims: (1) his confessions should have been suppressed, and (2) his trial counsel was ineffective at sentencing because he failed to investigate and present evidence of Benson's severe physical, sexual, and emotional abuse in early childhood. In addition, Benson raises two uncertified claims: (3) trial counsel was ineffective at the guilt phase in failing to impeach the state's case, and (4) the prosecutor withheld material and exculpatory evidence (a claim pursuant to Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) ).
Because Benson's claims are subject to review under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. § 2254, to be granted relief, he must show that the California Supreme Court's denials of his claims were unreasonable determinations of the facts or contrary to clearly established federal law. Benson has not done so. He confessed after he was given his Miranda warnings, acknowledged the warnings, and waived them. The California Supreme Court reasonably determined that an officer's misstatement during Benson's interrogation that there was no death penalty in California did not prompt Benson's confessions. Furthermore, Benson has not shown that his statements were not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. In addition, even if Benson were able to show that trial counsel was ineffective in not fully investigating his abuse as a child or his alleged organic brain injury, the California Supreme Court could reasonably have determined that any shortcoming in trial counsel's investigation was not prejudicial. Finally, we grant the Certificate of Appealability on Benson's two uncertified issues and determine that the state court reasonably rejected Benson's claims that (a) his trial counsel should have impeached the government's case, and (b) the prosecutor withheld material, exculpatory evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's denial of the writ.
There is overwhelming evidence that Benson deliberately murdered Laura Camargo and her two-year old son, and sexually molested her four-year-old and three-year-old daughters, before brutally murdering both girls. He then set the family's home on fire and fled the scene.
The California Supreme Court's opinion provides this recitation of the underlying facts:
People v. Benson , 52 Cal.3d 754, 276 Cal.Rptr. 827, 802 P.2d 330, 336–37 (1990).
On Monday morning, January 6, 1986, Mike Owen stopped by a liquor store in Nipomo. Benson approached him and asked for a ride to Oceano. Owen agreed. Benson retrieved his briefcase and was dropped off in Oceano just after 8:00 a.m. At around this time, smoke was seen coming from Laura's home and the fire department was called. The home was heavily damaged and charred. According to the district court:
On Tuesday, January 7, Benson asked a friend of a friend, K.S., for a ride to Los Osos, a town north of San Luis Obispo. K.S. agreed to give him a ride as far as San Luis Obispo, Benson picked up his belongings, and they left for San Luis Obispo around 6:30 p.m. They drove to an apartment complex where Benson got out and asked K.S. to wait while he went inside. When Benson returned, he started gathering his belongings, then he grabbed K.S. from behind, put a knife to her throat, and ordered her to drive to Los Osos. K.S. panicked and offered Benson her car. He rejected the offer and "took out a cylinder with something like a needle sticking out of it and told her it would kill her if he pricked her with it."
Benson made K.S. drive to a liquor store in San Luis Obispo where he forced her to buy a bottle of whiskey and pornographic magazines. They returned to the car and Benson forced her to continue driving to Los Osos. When they got there, Benson said he was on a mission to rescue a family in Los Osos.1 They talked in the parked car for more than an hour until Benson made a phone call. K.S. was terrified of Benson, who remained within reach of her. Benson made K.S. drive to an abandoned house, where he eventually got his things out of the car and went inside. K.S. drove straight home to San Luis Obispo and called the police.
Later that night, K.S. accompanied the police to the abandoned house in Los Osos. The police went to the house and arrested Benson. Benson was booked at around 11:30 p.m. on Tuesday, January 7, in connection with the kidnaping of K.S.
On Wednesday, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Beadle v. Allison
... ... that was before that state court," even where the state ... court denied the petition summarily) (footnote omitted); ... Benson v. Chappell , 958 F.3d 801, 824 (9th Cir ... 2020), cert, dism'd , 141 S.Ct. 2779 (2021) ... (under Pinholster , "new evidence may not ... ...
-
Phillips v. Fisher
... ... have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or ... inadvertently; and prejudice must have ensued.'” ... Benson v. Chappell , 958 F.3d 801, 837 (9th Cir ... 2020) (alteration in original) (quoting Strickler v ... Greene , 527 U.S. 263, 281-82 ... ...
-
McGill v. Shinn
...more sympathetic to a jury, it may also have the unwanted effect of making him seem less likely to be rehabilitated. Benson v. Chappell , 958 F.3d 801, 833 (9th Cir. 2020). The problem for McGill is that there is no reliable evidence that he was sexually abused. The investigators did not tu......
-
Lozano v. Doe
...a hearing at which he [was] presented with the probable cause of his arrest within forty-eight hours of the arrest." Benson v. Chappell, 958 F.3d 801, 823 (9th Cir. 2020). Defendants cannot responsibly or tenably deny that the Supreme Court's decades-old decision in McLaughlin —involving Ri......
-
Chapter 5 - §2. Elements for exclusion
...will was not overborne by the officer's mis-statement about there being no death penalty in California. Benson v. Chappell (9th Cir.2020) 958 F.3d 801, 826. • Confession was not involuntary when the investigator told the defendant he should "stop digging" and stated that "once I write my re......
-
Chapter 4 - §1. Overview
...v. U.S. (2017) ___ U.S. ___, 137 S.Ct. 1885, 1888; Strickler v. Greene (1999) 527 U.S. 263, 281-82; Benson v. Chappell (9th Cir.2020) 958 F.3d 801, 837. [a] Evidence was suppressed. For a Brady violation to occur, the prosecution must suppress Brady material—that is, evidence that is favora......
-
Chapter 5 - §2. Elements for exclusion
...find the subject's waiver knowing and intelligent as long as he appears to be responsive. See, e.g., Benson v. Chappell (9th Cir.2020) 958 F.3d 801, 826-27 (waiver was valid despite D's claim that he suffered from diffuse organic brain damage; D was unusually focused and responsive during p......
-
Table of Cases null
...Bennett v. Superior Court, 39 Cal. App. 5th 862, 252 Cal. Rptr. 3d 693 (2d Dist. 2019)—Ch. 2, §11.2.2(1)(b)[2][a] Benson v. Chappell, 958 F.3d 801 (9th Cir. 2020)—Ch. 4-C, §1.4.3(2)(a)[2]; Ch. 5-B, §2.2.2(3)(b)[2]; C, §2.2.2(1)(b)[4] Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370, 130 S. Ct. 2250, 176......