Noble v. Adams

Background

Wilbert Noble, a state prisoner serving a sentence of 130 years to life, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asking the federal court to grant habeas relief from his state convictions. The petition originally raised ten claims. After later proceedings, Noble voluntarily dismissed five claims, leaving seven claims for decision: a Confrontation Clause claim, a challenge to expert testimony about Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome, a claim that the prosecution withheld favorable evidence, ineffective assistance of trial counsel, cumulative error, a due-process challenge to an amendment of the charging document, and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

Noble also requested oral argument, conditional discovery, an evidentiary hearing, and expansion of the record. His discovery and hearing requests principally concerned his allegation that the prosecution had used an edited version of a recorded telephone call and that the full recording contained exculpatory evidence.

Legal standard

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, a federal court generally may grant relief on a state-court claim only if the state court’s decision was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established United States Supreme Court law, or was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. The federal court emphasized that this standard is highly deferential. For ineffective-assistance claims, the relevant question was not simply whether counsel performed inadequately, but whether the state court unreasonably applied the two-part test requiring deficient performance and resulting prejudice.

Court’s analysis

Confrontation Clause claim. Noble argued that playing a recorded call involving the victim’s mother violated his right to confront a witness who did not testify. The court held that California’s procedural bar applied because Noble had not raised the argument on direct appeal. The court therefore did not consider the claim in federal habeas review. It added that it had serious doubts about the claim’s merits because the mother’s statements appeared to have been admitted for context and were not testimonial.

Expert testimony. Noble challenged the admission and scope of testimony about Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome and argued that the expert, Carl Lewis, was not qualified. The court held that it could not review whether the testimony was properly admitted under California evidence law. It considered only whether the admission violated the federal Constitution. Relying on the absence of clearly established Supreme Court precedent holding that this type of evidence was unconstitutional, the court concluded that the state court’s rejection of the claim was not objectively unreasonable.

Alleged suppression of evidence. Noble claimed that the prosecution failed to provide the original, unedited telephone recording and that the recording contained exculpatory statements. The court found that the claim rested on speculation and an uncorroborated statement. It concluded that Noble had not shown that favorable evidence was suppressed and denied relief. The same lack of evidence also supported denying an evidentiary hearing on the claim.

Ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Noble identified several alleged failures by trial counsel, including failing to investigate the telephone call, investigate or impeach witnesses, obtain records, call a rebuttal expert, move for a mistrial or dismissal, present a physical-impossibility defense, and pursue alleged police misconduct. The court concluded that the state court’s rejection of these allegations was not objectively unreasonable. Among other reasons, the record did not show that an unedited recording existed; counsel had cross-examined the victim and challenged Lewis’s qualifications; additional impeachment was not substantially likely to change the result; the jury did not convict Noble of the sodomy charge involved in one physical-impossibility argument; and the police-misconduct allegation was conclusory.

Amendment to the charging document. Before trial, the trial judge allowed the prosecution to expand the charged time period from January 1, 2002 through May 31, 2002, to June 1, 2001 through May 31, 2002. Noble argued that the change deprived him of adequate notice and impaired his defense. The court held that the amendment did not materially change the charged conduct and that Noble had adequate notice of allegations beginning in summer 2001. The court also noted that defense counsel declined the trial judge’s offer of more time to investigate. It concluded that the state court could reasonably find no violation of clearly established federal law.

Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Noble argued that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the challenge to the amended charging document. Because the underlying challenge lacked merit, the court held that counsel’s decision not to raise it was not objectively unreasonable. The court also stated that the due-process argument had been waived.

Cumulative error. The court rejected Noble’s cumulative-error claim because it found no individual constitutional error to combine.

Disposition

The court denied Noble’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It separately denied his requests for oral argument, conditional discovery, an evidentiary hearing, and expansion of the record. The court also denied a certificate of appealability, directed the clerk to enter judgment and close the file, and stated that the order disposed of Docket Nos. 1, 66, 94, and 95.