Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, a California state prisoner appealed the denial of his post-AEDPA petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which challenged his conviction for lewd acts on a child under 14. The appellate court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and addressed several issues raised by the petitioner. The court reversed the procedural default ruling, finding that the California Supreme Court's procedural grounds were not independent and adequate. The court affirmed the sufficiency of evidence supporting the convictions, noting substantial testimony from victims and witnesses. The claim of inadequate notice was rejected, with the court affirming that the defendant received sufficient information to prepare a defense. The court also addressed the lack of a sua sponte unanimity instruction, applying the Brecht v. Abrahamson standard to determine any error was harmless. Furthermore, the court found no ineffective assistance of counsel, as the absence of a unanimity instruction did not affect the verdict. The court ultimately affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings, with specific claims to be reconsidered. The disposition was not published, per 9th Cir. R. 36-3, and Walsh conceded certain issues, including the merits of a lesser included offense claim.
Legal Issues Addressed
Ineffective Assistance of Counselsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court concluded that Walsh did not establish prejudice under the Strickland v. Washington standard, as the trial outcome was unlikely to have changed even if a unanimity instruction had been requested.
Reasoning: Consequently, Walsh did not satisfy the prejudice requirement of the Strickland v. Washington standard, making it unnecessary to assess whether his counsel's performance was deficient.
Procedural Default under Federal Habeas Corpus Reviewsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the California Supreme Court's procedural grounds for denying Carl Eugene Walsh, Jr.'s claims were not independent and adequate, reversing the procedural default ruling.
Reasoning: The court reviews this claim de novo and finds merit in Walsh’s argument, noting that the California Supreme Court's citation of procedural requirements does not provide independent and adequate grounds for denial.
Right to Fair Notice of Chargessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that Walsh was provided with sufficient notice of the charges, as required by state law, allowing him to prepare an adequate defense.
Reasoning: The court rejects this claim, stating that the information provided met state notice requirements, and Walsh waived any objections by failing to demur.
Sufficiency of Evidence for Convictionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that the testimonies of victims and corroborating witnesses provided substantial evidence to support Walsh's convictions, consistent with Supreme Court law.
Reasoning: Walsh first contends the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. The court finds that the victims' and corroborating witnesses' testimonies constituted substantial evidence, and the California courts' evaluation did not contravene Supreme Court law.
Unanimity Instruction and Due Processsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the absence of a sua sponte unanimity instruction did not significantly impact the verdict, applying the Brecht v. Abrahamson harmless error standard.
Reasoning: However, applying the Brecht v. Abrahamson standard, the court determined that any error was harmless since Walsh did not differentiate among the incidents described by the primary victim.