Allen v. Schuyler

Background

A California jury found Allen guilty in 2018 of first-degree murder and found true an allegation that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm during the offense. The state court imposed a sentence of 50 years to life in prison. Allen’s efforts to overturn the conviction in state court were unsuccessful.

Allen sought federal relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which permits a federal court to grant relief to a state prisoner only when the state-court decision violated federal law or was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. The federal court applied the deferential review required by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.

Actual Innocence

Allen relied on declarations from Larry Greer, who said he saw Johnson threaten Allen, saw the two men wrestle, and saw Allen take a gun from Johnson before Greer left without seeing the shooting. The court held that this claim was not independently cognizable because Allen did not connect it to a constitutional violation in the state criminal proceedings.

The court also found that Greer’s declarations were not sufficiently reliable. They were produced years after the crime and trial, Greer initially had difficulty recalling their contents, and he could not explain why a declaration he said was written in 2022 was dated October 2020. The court further found that Greer’s account did not make it more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted Allen. The actual-innocence claim was DENIED. Allen’s request for an evidentiary hearing on that claim was also DENIED.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Allen argued that trial lawyer David Bryden should have investigated Kenneth Marbley, Aiello Delane, and Christine Miller for evidence supporting self-defense, imperfect self-defense, or heat of passion. The court applied the two-part test requiring Allen to show both that counsel’s performance was objectively unreasonable and that the alleged error probably affected the result.

The court held that Bryden’s investigation was reasonable. The potential witnesses were difficult or impossible to locate, some information was hearsay, and Marbley had expressed unwillingness to participate. The court also reasoned that presenting a self-defense or heat-of-passion theory would have conflicted with Allen’s position that he was not present and did not commit the shooting. The ineffective-assistance claim based on failure to investigate was DENIED.

Allen also argued that Bryden was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor’s closing argument. Because the court found no prosecutorial misconduct, it held that failing to make a meritless objection was neither deficient nor prejudicial. This ineffective-assistance claim was DENIED.

Prosecutorial Misconduct

Allen argued that the prosecutor improperly claimed during closing argument that Allen concealed the gun and failed to warn Johnson, despite information that other witnesses may have heard Allen threaten Johnson. The court held that the prosecutor reasonably relied on Candace’s recorded statements and trial testimony, which indicated that Allen said nothing to Johnson immediately before the shooting. The court found the other information too unreliable to show that the prosecutor knew or should have known the argument was false. The prosecutorial-misconduct claim was DENIED.

Spectator Misconduct

Allen argued that spectators used threatening looks and gestures during testimony, causing interruptions and affecting jurors and witnesses. One juror was excused after expressing safety concerns about spectators associated with Allen.

The court first held that the claim was procedurally defaulted because Allen’s trial lawyer did not make a contemporaneous objection or request a curative instruction, and Allen did not show cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice sufficient to overcome that default. The court then considered the claim alternatively on the merits and held that the trial court’s actions, including addressing the audience, separating audience members, and removing one spectator, together with the jury instructions, were insufficient to show that Allen was denied a fair trial. The spectator-misconduct claim was DENIED as procedurally defaulted and was also DENIED on the additional ground that it lacked merit.

Cumulative Error

Allen argued that the combined effect of the alleged errors denied him a fair trial. The court held that because the individual claims of prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance, and instructional error lacked merit, there were no errors to combine into a constitutional violation. The cumulative-error claim was DENIED.

Disposition

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus was DENIED. The court also DENIED the request for an evidentiary hearing on actual innocence, declined to issue a certificate of appealability, directed the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of Schuyler, and ordered the file closed. The opinion states that Allen may seek a certificate of appealability from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.