Phelps v. Peery

Background

Brewster Denyvous Phelps, a California state prisoner proceeding without an attorney, petitioned for federal habeas relief from his state conviction. In 2018, he was convicted in the Santa Clara County Superior Court of attempted murder, assault with a firearm, and assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury. He received a sentence of 25 years to life followed by 10 years. The amended petition was the operative pleading. Three of its four claims had previously been dismissed, leaving claim two: that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to call an expert witness on eyewitness identification.

Phelps had presented the claim to the California Court of Appeal on direct appeal and in a state habeas petition. He later presented it to the California Supreme Court in a habeas petition, which that court denied without explanation. The federal court therefore reviewed the California Court of Appeal’s reasoned decision as the relevant state-court ruling.

Legal standard

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, a federal court generally may grant relief on a state prisoner’s constitutional claim only if the state court’s decision was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established United States Supreme Court law, or rested on an unreasonable determination of the facts. The court also applied the two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel from Strickland v. Washington: the petitioner must show that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that the deficiency caused prejudice, meaning a reasonable probability that the result would have been different.

Court’s analysis

The California Court of Appeal had concluded that counsel’s failure to call an identification expert was not ineffective assistance. It reasoned that the bar manager had spent substantial time with Phelps before the shooting, had previously seen him, and identified him as the shooter. The manager’s identification was also supported by surveillance footage before and after the shooting. The state court further concluded that there was no reasonable probability of a more favorable result even if an expert had testified.

Judge Corley held that the state court reasonably applied the Strickland standard. The evidence supported the finding that the manager was familiar with Phelps and had observed him for an extended period before the shooting. The manager also reviewed video of the shooting during the investigation and at trial. The federal court noted that Phelps did not describe what testimony an identification expert would have offered in the federal petition. It also relied on the video evidence and the fact that trial counsel had already argued that the manager was distracted, quickly left the area, and lacked a reliable opportunity to identify the shooter.

The court concluded that the state courts’ rejection of the ineffective-assistance claim was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, and was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. The court therefore denied habeas relief on the remaining claim.

Disposition

The court denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It also declined to issue a certificate of appealability because it found that no reasonable jurist would consider debatable or wrong the denial of the remaining claim on its merits or the earlier dismissal of the other claims on procedural grounds. The clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the file.