Stevens v. Davis

Citation25 F.4th 1141
Decision Date14 February 2022
Docket NumberNo. 19-99004,19-99004
Parties Charles STEVENS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald DAVIS, Warden, San Quentin State Prison, Respondent-Appellee.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

25 F.4th 1141

Charles STEVENS, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Ronald DAVIS, Warden, San Quentin State Prison, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 19-99004

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted July 19, 2021 Pasadena, California
Filed February 14, 2022


Brian M. Pomerantz (argued), Law Offices of Brian M. Pomerantz, Carrboro, North Carolina; Richard A. Tamor, Tamor & Tamor, Oakland, California; for Petitioner-Appellant.

Sarah J. Farhat (argued), Deputy Attorney General; Alice B. Lustre, Supervising Deputy Attorney General; James W. Bilderback III, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Rob Bonta, Attorney General; Attorney General's Office, California Department of Justice, San Francisco, California; for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: Sandra S. Ikuta, Paul J. Watford, and Daniel P. Collins, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

IKUTA, Circuit Judge:

A California jury convicted Charles Stevens of four murders and six attempted

25 F.4th 1147

murders and sentenced him to death. Stevens claims that the prosecutor's decision to strike black prospective jurors constituted purposeful discrimination on the basis of race, in violation of Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). The California Supreme Court rejected these claims on direct appeal. People v. Stevens , 41 Cal. 4th 182, 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 196, 158 P.3d 763 (2007). Reviewing the California Supreme Court's determination under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, we affirm the judgment of the district court denying Stevens's habeas claims.

I

A

In the four months between April and July 1989, Stevens randomly shot at people on or near Interstate 580 in Oakland. This shooting spree left four people dead and six people injured. Stevens , 41 Cal. 4th at 187, 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 196, 158 P.3d 763.1

His final attacks took place in the early morning hours of July 27, 1989. At that time, Rodney Stokes was driving home from work on Interstate 580. Id. Stevens pulled up alongside his vehicle, and Stokes lowered his passenger window to see if he knew the driver. Stevens motioned to get Stokes's attention, smiled at him, and then shot at him. Id. at 187–88, 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 196, 158 P.3d 763. As Stokes struggled to regain control of his car, Stevens shot at Stokes twice more. Id. at 188, 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 196, 158 P.3d 763. Stevens then pulled away. Id.

Trailing Stevens, Stokes saw Stevens pull alongside Raymond August's car and slow down. Id. Stokes saw both cars' brake lights come on and heard "at least two gunshots." Id. August's car crashed into a pillar under an overpass, and he died at the scene. Id. Stevens exited the freeway and reentered the freeway going in the opposite direction before stopping near the scene. Id. Stokes called 911. Id. When police arrived, they found Stevens, still parked, watching the scene of August's murder. Id. Stevens attempted to flee, and when an officer grabbed him, "a heavy metallic object hit the ground." Id. The object was a loaded .357 magnum Desert Eagle semiautomatic pistol which was later proven to be "either a match to or consistent with the gun used" in all but one of the crimes. Id. Stevens was also carrying a loaded magazine and a loose bullet. Id.

A subsequent search of Stevens's apartment revealed a box and a manual for the pistol, a gun case, gun cleaning equipment, a cartridge, a pistol magazine, bullets, and practice targets. Id. at 189, 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 196, 158 P.3d 763. The search also discovered "a collection of Oakland newspapers containing articles about the shootings" and "an envelope with handwritten references to what appeared to be various Penal and Vehicle Code sections including those regarding murder, assault, vehicle theft, and weapons offenses." Id.

Stevens was charged with multiple first degree murders with special circumstances. Richard Clark stood trial with Stevens as a co-defendant for one murder—the shooting of Leslie Noyer. Id. at 187, 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 196, 158 P.3d 763. Clark told the police that "he had shot Noyer under duress because [Stevens] threatened to shoot him," but at trial "denied being present at the murder scene." Id. at 189, 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 196, 158 P.3d 763.

25 F.4th 1148

During voir dire and jury selection in December 1992 and January 1993, Stevens's counsel brought or joined four motions under People v. Wheeler , 22 Cal. 3d 258, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748 (1978).2 These motions asserted that the prosecutor purposefully discriminated when he used peremptory challenges to excuse black prospective jurors. See Stevens , 41 Cal. 4th at 192, 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 196, 158 P.3d 763. The trial court denied all four motions, and the empaneled jury included one black juror and one black alternate. Id.3

Clark, Stevens's co-defendant, brought the first Wheeler motion after the prosecutor used his twelfth peremptory challenge to excuse prospective juror Walter Simpson. Stevens joined that motion. Defense counsel argued that the prosecutor had impermissibly struck four black prospective jurors: Henry Hill, Larry Foster, Jean Clemons, and Simpson. The trial court found that defense counsel established a prima facie case of discrimination under Wheeler and asked the prosecutor to state his justifications for the strikes.

In response, the prosecutor stated that the four prospective jurors "indicated in one way or another at the very least an ambivalence and the lack of commitment, at least in my mind, of their willingness to impose the death penalty." The prosecutor offered more specific reasons for striking each prospective juror, which we discuss in more detail below.

The trial court recessed briefly to review its notes. After "an analysis of the proffered reasons and the court's own observations," the trial court denied the Wheeler motion and found that the prosecution "met its burden to rebut the inference of group bias" as to the four black prospective jurors. Jury selection resumed.

The prosecutor then used peremptory challenges to excuse three other black prospective jurors, Patricia King, Sarah McCall, and Joyce Gray. After each strike, defense counsel made a Wheeler motion. As explained in more detail below, the prosecutor indicated his decision in each case was based on the prospective juror's ambivalence and the prosecutor's uncertainty about the juror's ability to impose the death penalty. The trial court considered "the arguments of counsel and also my own observations and recollection[s] of this juror" in each case, and concluded that the prosecutor met his burden to rebut the inference of discrimination under Wheeler.

In March 1993, the jury convicted Stevens. The jury found the special circumstances that Stevens killed his final victim while lying in wait and that Stevens committed multiple murders. Id. The court declared a mistrial for Clark. Stevens , 41 Cal. 4th at 187, 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 196, 158 P.3d 763. At the penalty phase, the jury voted in favor of the death penalty, and the trial court sentenced Stevens to death. Id.

B

In his direct appeal to the California Supreme Court, Stevens argued that the

25 F.4th 1149

trial court erred in denying his Wheeler motions. Stevens , 41 Cal. 4th at 187, 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 196, 158 P.3d 763. Stevens's brief focused on the strikes of Hill, Foster, and Clemons. Although Stevens mentioned the strikes of four other prospective jurors in his brief,4 the California Supreme Court concluded that Stevens challenged "only the ruling on the first motion" (relating to the strikes of Hill, Foster, Clemons, and Simpson) on direct appeal. Id. at 192, 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 196, 158 P.3d 763. Considering only the strikes against Hill, Foster and Clemons (Stevens did not provide separate arguments about Simpson), the California Supreme Court determined that nothing in the record indicated "that pretext is evident" in the prosecutor's stated justifications for striking the three prospective jurors. Id. at 196–198, 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 196, 158 P.3d 763. Deferring to the trial court's credibility determination, the California Supreme Court concluded that Stevens "failed to demonstrate purposeful racial discrimination against prospective jurors." Id. at 198, 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 196, 158 P.3d 763. Stevens sought review from the United States Supreme Court, which denied Stevens's petition for writ of certiorari. Stevens v. California , 552 U.S. 1118, 128 S.Ct. 921, 169 L.Ed.2d 762 (2008).

While Stevens's direct appeal was pending, he filed a petition for habeas relief with the California Supreme Court. Among other claims, Stevens alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel in failing to perform a comparative juror analysis in the trial court to support his Wheeler claim. The California Supreme Court denied the habeas petition largely on the merits, including ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

C

Stevens sought federal habeas relief in district court. The May 2014 amended petition is the operative petition here. In his petition, Stevens challenged (among other things) the California Supreme Court's rejection of his claim that the prosecutor's use of seven peremptory challenges against black prospective jurors was an unreasonable application of Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Coddington v. Martel
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • May 3, 2023
    ...... “on the merits” for the purposes of AEDPA. See Pinholster , 563 U.S. at 190; Ochoa v. Davis , 50 F.4th 865, 888 (9th Cir. 2022); Nunes v. Mueller , 350 F.3d 1045, 1054-55 (9th Cir. 2003). A. petitioner establishes a prima facie ... operative statutes. See Gregg , 428 U.S. at 189. (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.) (holding. Furman “mandates that where discretion is. afforded a sentencing body on a matter so grave as the. ......
  • Holt v. Smith
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • April 26, 2023
    ...... not in play because the underlying claim had not been. reviewed on the merits by the state court. Stevens v. Davis, 25 F.4th 1141, 1153 n.6, 1165-66 (9th Cir. 2022). (citing Brumfieldv. Cain, 576 U.S. 305, 322 (2015). and Crittenden ......
  • Curry v. Haynes
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District of Washington)
    • May 11, 2023
    ...... Daubert admissibility challenges constituted. ineffective assistance of counsel. See, e.g. Stevens v. Davis, No. C 09-00137 WHA, 2019 WL 249398, at *14 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2019), aff'd on other grounds , 25. F.4th 1141 (9th Cir. ......
  • Duong v. Sherman
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California
    • July 22, 2022
    ...... petitioner will not be entitled to a writ of habeas corpus if. his or her claim is rejected on de novo review.'”. Stevens" v. Davis, 25 F.4th 1141, 1165 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Berghuis v. Thompkins , 560 U.S. 370,. 390 (2010)). . .     \xC2"......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT