Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Bismillah v. Gomez
Citation: 26 F. App'x 663Docket: No. 00-17257; D.C. No. CV-95-01851-MHP
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; December 19, 2001; Federal Appellate Court
U-Akbar Sharrieff Bismillah petitions for habeas relief from his conviction for the kidnapping and felony assault of Janet Alston, asserting constitutional error due to the trial court's failure to address a request for a mental competency hearing. The court found that the evidence presented did not raise a bona fide doubt regarding Bismillah’s competence, as the declaration from attorney William Daley merely contained a conclusory claim without supporting facts. Bismillah did not provide medical history indicating incompetence, and his behavioral issues were deemed obstinance rather than incompetence. During separate hearings on a motion to substitute counsel and a motion for self-representation, the trial court had ample opportunity to assess Bismillah’s capabilities to assist in his defense, concluding that despite dissatisfaction with his attorney, he was competent. The court noted that the failure to rule on Daley’s request did not warrant reversing the conviction. Bismillah also argued ineffective assistance of counsel, claiming Daley failed to investigate Alston’s criminal history and potential motive to fabricate testimony. To succeed in this claim, Bismillah needed to demonstrate that Daley’s performance was unreasonably deficient and that it likely altered the trial's outcome. Although Daley did not uncover certain cases involving Alston, her credibility was sufficiently challenged by other evidence, including her status as a drug addict on probation. The jury’s acquittal of Bismillah on the rape charge, which relied solely on Alston's allegations, indicated skepticism towards her credibility. Corroborating evidence supported the charges of assault and kidnapping, including testimony from Alston’s mother and physical evidence of injuries consistent with the assault. Bismillah’s argument that further impeachment of Alston would have changed the jury's perspective was deemed unlikely, given the existing evidence demonstrating his responsibility for Alston's injuries and the circumstances of the kidnapping. Consequently, the court affirmed the conviction, stating the disposition is not suitable for publication or citation in future cases except as permitted by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.