DEATH
PENALTY CASE
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (REDACTED): (1) CONDITIONALLY
GRANTING HABEAS RELIEF ON GUILT PHASE CLAIMS 11, 12, 13
(portion) and 14, (2) DECLINING ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY; AND (3) DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO
SUBSTITUTE OAK SMITH AS THE RESPONDENT WARDEN AND ENTER
JUDGMENT
NOTICE
REGARDING REDACTION
On
July 10, 2006, this court entered a protective order pursuant
to Bittaker v. Woodford, 331 F.3d 715 (9th Cir.
2003), concerning the files of Petitioner's trial
counsel, including the files and notes made by experts
investigators, paralegal/legal assistants, and others
involved in the preparation of the defense of
petitioner's trial.[2] (See Doc. No. 138
at
6-8.) The protective order includes within its reach
testimony in this proceeding referring to such confidential
materials, as well as testimony by petitioner, trial counsel
or any investigator or expert retained by trial counsel.
(Id.) The protective order continues in effect after
the conclusion of the habeas corpus proceedings and
specifically shall apply in connection with all state court
proceedings including a retrial of all or any portion of
petitioner's criminal case. (Id.)
In
the order below, the Court has redacted allegations filed
under seal and evidence from exhibits and state court records
filed and lodged under seal. The court, throughout this order
refers to confidential information and testimony that
otherwise appears in the public record. Where noted, sealed
content and confidential information and testimony not in the
public record has been redacted. Issued concurrently with
this memorandum and order is an unredacted version of the
memorandum and order, filed under seal.
*****
Petitioner
John Lee Holt is a state prisoner sentenced to death
proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He is represented in this action by
appointed counsel Robert Myers and Assistant Federal Defender
Jennifer Mann.
Respondent
Oak Smith is named as Warden of San Quentin State Prison. He
is represented in this action by California Deputy Attorney
Generals Sean McCoy and Peter Thompson.
Before
the court for a decision following the limited evidentiary
hearing that took place before the undersigned on October 24
26, and November 1, 2017 are the following claims asserted in
petitioner's writ of habeas corpus filed December 1, 1998
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254: claim 11 (alleging
petitioner's incompetence to stand trial), claim 12
(alleging ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to
raise incompetence to stand trial), claim 13 (alleging
ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to raise certain
mental state defenses at the guilt phase
of the trial), claim 14 (alleging ineffective assistance of
counsel by calling petitioner to testify at the guilt phase
of the trial), claim 15 (alleging ineffective assistance of
counsel by failing to request lesser included jury
instructions to rape, and trial court error by sua
sponte failing to give such lesser included
instructions),[3] and claim 16 (alleging ineffective
assistance of counsel by failing to investigate and defend
against the rape charge).[4]
After
careful consideration of the record and the parties'
post-hearing briefs, the undersigned: (i) conditionally
grants federal habeas relief as to petitioner's guilt
phase claims 11, 12, 13 (portion), and 14 and vacates
petitioner's conviction and sentence entered on May 30,
1990 in People v. John Lee Holt, Kern County
Superior Court Case No. 39910;[5] (ii) denies federal habeas relief
as to petitioner's guilt phase claims 2, 3, 6, 8, 9
(portion), 10, 13 (portion), 15, and 16;[6] and (iii)
declines to issue a certificate of
appealability.[7] The court does not address
the unresolved claims in the federal petition, rendered moot
hereunder.[8] Should a higher court disagree with this
court's conclusions granting federal habeas relief as to
the guilt phase claims, this court will consider the
unresolved claims at that time.
This
factual summary is taken from the California Supreme
Court's summary of the facts in its May 19, 1997 opinion
on direct appeal. The summary of facts is presumed correct
except to the extent inconsistent with the court's
intrinsic review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2).
(See Doc. No. 96 at 144, 150, 153, 236-37, 259
268-72); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); see also Taylor v.
Maddox, 366 F.3d 992, 999 (9th Cir. 2004) (acknowledging
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
("AEDPA") deference to state court factual
findings) (overruled on other grounds by Murray v.
Schriro, 745 F.3d 984, 999-1001 (9th Cir. 2014), as
recognized by Prescott v. Santoro, 53 F.4th 470, 480
(9th Cir. 2022)); Vasquez v. Kirkland, 572 F.3d
1029, 1031 n.l (9th Cir. 2009) ("We rely on the state
appellate court's decision for our summary of the facts
of the crime.").
Guilt-Phase Evidence
A. The Prosecution Case
Defendant had been employed for one month in door-to-door
sales of household cleaning products on July 6, 1989, when he
called at the Bakersfield home of 65-year-old Marie Axtell, a
widow who lived alone. He had undergone a short training
period before being sent to Bakersfield on July 3, 1989, as
part of a 15-person sales crew which was staying in a local
hotel. On the morning of July 6, defendant and Cameron
Bearden, who had been assigned to assist in training
defendant, worked together on one street, after which they
split up. Defendant was repeatedly rebuffed in his efforts to
make sales.
When defendant arrived at the home of Ms. Axtell, she was
lying on the living room sofa. The door was open. When she
said she did not want his products, defendant jerked opened
the screen door, entered the living room, and sexually
assaulted Ms. Axtell, first in the living room and then in
the master bedroom of the home. Ms. Axtell was strangled and
rendered unconscious at some point during the assault.
Defendant then took jewelry from the bedroom, root beer from
the refrigerator in the kitchen, and money from Ms
Axtell's wallet, which was on the kitchen table.
Returning to the bedroom, he left the unopened root beer on a
dresser, took more jewelry, and departed. His company
identification badge was found in the living room. His
fingerprints were found on items throughout the house,
including the root beer can.
Glenn Copeland, Ms. Axtell's son, who lived in Tehachapi,
had visited the Axtell house about 8 a.m. He left at 9 a.m.
to do an errand for his mother. When he left the house, Ms.
Axtell's purse and wallet were on the kitchen table. On
Copeland's return to the house about 11:30 a.m., he saw a
brown briefcase near the front door. The screen door, which
his mother had latched when he left, was unlatched and open
several inches. The latch had been bent. Alarmed, he entered
and found his mother unconscious, lying facedown on the floor
in the bedroom. What appeared to be a bag was in her mouth
and a cloth was wrapped around her neck and double knotted.
Copeland called 911, and after again checking his
mother's condition went next door to seek assistance. As
he left the house he confronted defendant who was picking up
the briefcase. When accused, defendant denied being inside
the house. When Copeland again accused defendant of being in
the home, defendant said he was going to check with his boss
in the van across the street. There was no van across the
street. Copeland directed defendant to remain, but when
Copeland returned two minutes later from the house of the
neighbor, defendant and the briefcase were gone. Emergency
vehicles arrived several minutes later and Ms. Axtell was
taken to the hospital.
Just after he saw an ambulance on the street defendant was
supposed to be working on, Cameron Bearden saw defendant near
the pickup area for the sales crew. Defendant beckoned him to
come over. Bearden observed that defendant was
"hyper," his hair was "messed up," and he
did not have his briefcase. The briefcase was one issued to
salespeople by the company. It contained a "sales
kit" of items used in making the sales presentation.
Defendant said his briefcase was at the pickup area. Bearden
saw the briefcase at the pickup stop. Defendant and Bearden
were picked up by a supervisor in a company van. Defendant
told the supervisor that he had not made any sales. The
supervisor then dropped the two men off in the same area even
though defendant said he wanted to work in another area.
Defendant left the sleeveless vest he always wore, even in
the Bakersfield heat, in the van.
The two men were then stopped by Detective West who had heard
a police radio call regarding an attempted homicide and a
description of a suspect. Defendant was carrying a brown
briefcase. The location of the detention was one block from
Ms. Axtell's home. West questioned defendant and Bearden
who denied having been on the street on which Ms.
Axtell's home was located. He spoke to them for about 10
minutes.
Aubin, another officer, who had heard a description of the
suspect, arrived to back up West, as defendant and Bearden
were walking away. He detained defendant and Bearden at the
request of Detective Vest who arrived with Ms. Axtell's
son. Glenn Copeland told the officers that he believed he
recognized the briefcase carried by defendant, and one of the
men as the person he had seen at his mother's house.
The officers conducted a pat-search of Bearden and defendant
preparatory to placing them in a patrol car. Aubin found a
pen, ointment jar, and jewelry in defendant's right front
pants' pocket. Defendant was arrested and a more thorough
search revealed $160
...
