White v. Arnold

• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
• Writing for the Court: YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
• Decision Date: 20 May 2019
• Docket Number: CASE NO. 17-cv-06507-YGR
• Citation: White v. Arnold, CASE NO. 17-cv-06507-YGR (N.D. Cal. May 20, 2019)
• Parties: PHILLIP WHITE, Petitioner, v. ERIC ARNOLD, Respondent.

PHILLIP WHITE, Petitioner, v. ERIC ARNOLD, Respondent.

CASE NO. 17-cv-06507-YGR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

May 20, 2019

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF

Now before the Court is petitioner Phillip White's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (Dkt. No. 1 ("Petition").) The government answered (Dkt. No. 11-1 ("Answer")) and petitioner filed a traverse in reply (Dkt. No. 17-1 ("Traverse")). Petitioner raises five grounds for relief—prosecutorial misconduct, insufficient evidence, denial of a competency hearing, denial of right to be present at a critical stage, and cumulative error. Based thereon, petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus. Having carefully considered the petition and the papers submitted, and for the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES the petition for such relief.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural Background

In April 2012, an Alameda County jury convicted petitioner of first-degree murder and found true the allegation that petitioner personally used a deadly weapon, a knife, and that he had served a prior prison term. 2 CT 250-251; 7 RT 1213-14. The trial court sentenced petitioner to 26 years to life in state prison. 2 CT 333-37; 7 RT 1234-35.

On May 16, 2016, the California Court of Appeal affirmed petitioner's conviction. (Dkt. No. 12-9 ("COA Opinion").) On August 10, 2016, the California Supreme Court denied the petition for review. (Dkt. Nos. 12-10, 12-11.)

Petitioner timely filed the instant habeas petition in federal court on November 8, 2017. (See Petition.)

B. Factual Background

The Court adopts as its account of the facts the summary set forth in the last reasoned opinion in this matter, the California Court of Appeal unpublished decision issued on May 16, 2016. The People v. Phillip White, No. A139043 (Cal. App. Ct., First Appellate District, Division Four, May 16, 2016 (unpublished opinion). (COA Opinion.) This summary is presumed correct. See Hernandez v. Small, 282 F.3d 1132, 1135 n.1 (9th Cir. 2002); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1).

Jacqueline Mason lived with her two daughters and two grandsons in a three bedroom apartment in Oakland. Mason's bedroom was adjacent to her daughter, Jacqueline's, bedroom. Revlon Majeste, Mason's older daughter, stayed in the bedroom directly across from Mason's. Majeste's two sons slept in the living room. Defendant, who was romantically involved with Mason, was staying with her during the last week or two of June 2007, and shared her bedroom. Mason was 43 years old; defendant was 27. Jacqueline characterized her mother's relationship with defendant as a "love/hate type relationship." Majeste testified that both defendant and Mason told her about arguments they were having, and that their relationship had become tense.

On the evening of June 28, 2007, Mason, defendant, and Majeste had plans to go to a club where Mason and defendant were going to perform some songs at an open mike venue. Before they left for the club, defendant and Mason were avoiding each other and there was tension in the apartment. Defendant told Majeste he was not getting along with Mason because she was not giving him enough respect. He complained that Mason treated him like a child. He said, "She's pushing me to no limit with talking to me crazy, and I could just snap." Majeste and defendant had a similar conversation a day or two previously.

Defendant and Mason left for the club at approximately 10:00 p.m. Majeste went to the club about an hour later. Defendant mingled at the club while Mason stood around waiting for her turn to perform on stage. At midnight, Mason decided to leave because she was not getting an opportunity to perform and was frustrated. She asked Majeste to give defendant a ride to the apartment.

Mason returned home at about 1:15 a.m. Jacqueline testified that she appeared irritated and told her that defendant was getting on her nerves. Mason went to her bedroom and packed defendant's things in his two duffle bags. Mason said, "I'm sick of him He got to get out of my house." Jacqueline went to her bedroom and went to sleep.

Meanwhile, defendant performed a rap song at the club and left the club with Majeste around 1:00 or 2:00 a.m. Defendant was not intoxicated, and seemed energetic and ready to continue the evening. Defendant and Majeste decided to check out a bar in North Oakland but when they arrived, it was closed. They returned to the apartment and Majeste went inside. Defendant remained outside with a neighbor. Majeste prepared to go to bed. She did not check on her mother, but did notice defendant's duffel bag in the kitchen. As she was falling asleep, she heard her mother say, "Get the fuck out of my room." She heard Mason and defendant arguing and then fell asleep.

Majeste woke up between 9:00 and 10:00 a.m. She looked in on hermother and saw the back side of a naked body on her mother's bed and assumed it was defendant. She immediately closed the door because she did not want to violate his privacy. She assumed that her mother had left the apartment early. Majeste left the apartment to take her children to daycare and noticed that her mother's van was gone.

Jacqueline woke up [at] about 10:00 a.m. and realized that her mother was not breathing. She called Majeste, who drove back to the apartment. On the way, Majeste flagged down a police car that followed her home.

The police found Mason lying half off the bed. There was a cut and blood on her head and cuts on her arms and hands. She was not breathing. Additional police officers, medical personnel, and Jeffery Haymon, a crime scene technician, responded to the scene. Haymond found Mason lying face down on the bed. She had injuries to her face, neck area, and arms. Haymon found blood on Mason's body and bed; he did not find blood anywhere else. Mason's purse was lying near the foot of the bed. Some of its contents were strewn nearby it. Mason's keys and wallet were missing. One of the drawers of the nightstand next to the bed was open. Haymon searched the apartment for a knife that could have caused Mason's injuries, but did not find one.

Dr. Thomas Rogers, a forensic pathologist, performed an autopsy on Mason. Mason had a total of 12 wounds on her body including stab wounds and incised wounds. A stab wound tends to go deeper into the body, while an incised wound is more superficial. Rogers numbered the wounds. Wound number 1 was a stab wound located on the right side of the face, in front of the right ear. It was 2 and 5/16 of an inch in length. It penetrated into the neck, involved major blood vessels, and would have caused most people to die within a three-to-five minute period without medical intervention. Wound number 2 was behind the right ear; number 3 was to the area of the right collarbone; number 4 was to the left side of the back; and number 5 was to the outside of the right upper arm. Wounds number 3 to 5 were superficial wounds. Wounds numbers 1 through 5 were consistent with the possibility that Mason was lying face down on the mattress when she was stabbed. Wound number 6 was to the right forearm and extended about half an inch beneath the surface of the skin. Wound numbers 7 and 8 were stab wounds to the right wrist. Wound number 9 was an incised wound to the top part of the right hand. Wounds 10 and 11 were superficial wounds to the right fourth and fifth fingers, respectively. Wound number 12 was also a superficial wound to the back side of the right hand. Wounds numbers 6 to 12 were consistent with defensive wounds. Dr. Rogers opined that the cause of death was multiple stab and incised wounds.

Defendant was arrested in Denver, Colorado on July 1, 2007. Detective Tony Jones interviewed defendant in Denver. Defendant waived his Miranda rights. He was alert and coherent during the interview. He said that he and Mason had argued around 5:00 p.m. on June 28, 2007, but they agreed to go to the club that evening to perform. When he returned from the club, he was surprised to find that she had packed his bags. When he tried to lay down on her bed, she shoved him out of the bed and told him he needed to leave "by tomorrow." She said, "It's nothing to have you touched.¹ If you ain't gonna leave my house . . . ."

He left the room and went to surf the internet, but Mason came out and took the mouse for the computer. She told him not to use her stuff. He tried to talk with her again in the bedroom but she told him to sleep on the floor. He then went to the kitchen to make himself a sandwich, but again Mason came out and took the big knife he was using back to her bedroom because she did not want him to use her things.

Defendant went into the bedroom a third time to try to talk to Mason, but she did not want to talk. Defendant went into the living room, but could not find a place to sleep because Majeste's children were sleeping on the couch. So he went back to Mason's room and it was "chaos." The next thing he remembered was that he was at a toll booth crossing the bridge into San Francisco. He acknowledged that he took Mason's van and one of his bags. He parked the van and then took a cab to the Greyhound station, where he boarded a bus to Reno. He said that he needed help to know what happened in Mason's apartment, as he did not think he was capable of doing "it." He complained that Mason treated him like he was one of her kids, but said he stayed with her because she had connections and he needed help with his music career. He could not remember how he got Mason's credit card or the keys for the van.

Dr. Bruce Smith, a clinical and forensic psychologist, testified on defendant's behalf. Dr. Smith opined that defendant suffered from chronic post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and a schizoaffective disorder. It is likely that he had the schizoaffective disorder at the time of the murder. Dr. Smith also opined that someone with defendant's conditions was likely to act impulsively and without thought or consideration when threatened.

Dr. Smith also testified that

...