Norford v. Montgomery

Background

Leon Norford sought federal review of his California conviction arising from an April 17, 2012 drive-by shooting in Richmond, California. A jury convicted him of first-degree murder and criminal street-gang conspiracy. The jury also found several sentence-enhancing factors. The trial court sentenced Norford to life without the possibility of parole. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, and the California Supreme Court denied further review. Norford later pursued state habeas proceedings, which were denied, before filing this federal petition.

Norford asked the court to reverse or send back his conviction, or to hold an evidentiary hearing. His six claims concerned: (1) trial counsel’s failure to present a defense gang expert; (2) admission of a pretrial photo identification; (3) allegedly false identification evidence; (4) admission of evidence concerning an uncharged jailhouse altercation; (5) cumulative prejudice from the alleged errors; and (6) actual innocence.

Legal standard

The court reviewed the petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. Under that standard, federal habeas relief generally cannot be granted on a claim decided on the merits by a state court unless the state decision contradicted clearly established United States Supreme Court law, unreasonably applied that law, or rested on an unreasonable determination of the facts. The petitioner bears the burden of proof, and the standard is highly deferential to state-court decisions.

Ineffective assistance of counsel

Norford argued that his trial lawyer was constitutionally ineffective for failing to call a defense gang expert. The court applied the two-part test for ineffective assistance: Norford had to show both that counsel’s performance fell below an objectively reasonable standard and that the failure probably affected the outcome.

The court held that the state court reasonably rejected this claim. Norford had not provided a declaration from trial counsel explaining the investigation or strategy, evidence showing that counsel’s investigation was professionally deficient, or federal authority requiring a defense expert whenever the prosecution presents a gang expert. The record instead showed that counsel vigorously cross-examined the prosecution’s gang witness on the weaknesses Norford’s proposed expert identified. The court concluded that federal law does not impose a general requirement that the defense present an opposing expert for every prosecution expert. It also concluded that Norford had not shown a reasonable probability that presenting a defense gang expert would have changed the trial result.

Photo-identification evidence

Norford argued that the photo lineup was unnecessarily suggestive because his photograph showed a lighter complexion and longer dreadlocks than the other photographs. He also relied on the eyewitness’s uncertainty and attempted recantation at trial.

The court held that the California Court of Appeal reasonably found the identification reliable and the lineup not unduly suggestive. The eyewitness had viewed the suspect for 10 to 15 seconds from 25 to 28 feet in daylight, had an unobstructed view, gave a specific description, rejected all photographs in an earlier lineup, and promptly identified Norford in the later lineup. The court found that the differences in hair length and complexion did not make Norford stand out enough to create an impermissible suggestion. It also concluded that admitting the identification did not cause the substantial and injurious effect required for federal habeas relief. This claim was DENIED.

Allegedly false evidence

Norford argued that the prosecution knowingly presented false identification evidence because the eyewitness later said at trial that the photograph did not look like the person she remembered. The court evaluated the claim on the merits while assuming, without deciding, that a procedural bar did not prevent review.

To prevail on this type of claim, Norford had to show that the evidence was actually false, that the prosecution knew or should have known it was false, and that it was material. The court held that he failed to show the first two requirements. The state court reasonably concluded that the eyewitness’s later recantation could have resulted from fear and that it was not clear whether the original identification or the later recantation was false. The court also found no basis to conclude that prosecutors suspected the identification was false before the witness attempted to recant at trial.

Evidence of uncharged conduct

Norford challenged the admission of evidence about his uncharged involvement in a jailhouse altercation with known gang members. He relied primarily on California evidence law and made only a passing reference to federal due process. The court stated that, even if it rejected the respondent’s procedural arguments and reached the merits, Norford had identified no federal basis for relief. The court concluded that he had not shown that the state court’s rejection of this claim contradicted or unreasonably applied clearly established federal law.

Cumulative prejudice

Norford argued that the combined effect of the alleged errors made his trial unfair. Because the court found no individual constitutional errors, it rejected the cumulative-error claim as well.

Actual innocence

Norford asserted that he was actually innocent, relying on his challenges to the eyewitness identification and the fact that the surviving shooting victim did not identify him. The court noted that the state court found the claim conclusory and unsupported by additional evidence. Assuming without deciding that the respondent’s procedural objection did not bar review, the court held that Norford still failed to satisfy the federal standard.

Discovery and evidentiary hearing

Norford requested discovery and an evidentiary hearing but did not explain what evidence either process would produce. The court held that he had not shown that a hearing could establish facts that would entitle him to relief. His requests for additional discovery and an evidentiary hearing were DENIED.

Disposition

The court DENIED Norford’s amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It also DENIED his requests for discovery and an evidentiary hearing.