Cannedy, Jr. v. Adams, No. 09-56902 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePetitioner was convicted of committing lewd and lascivious acts upon his stepdaughter, and of attempting to dissuade her from reporting those acts to the police. Petitioner filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254, arguing that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel and the district court granted the petition. The court concluded that petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel where counsel failed to interview a potentially important witness or to introduce significant exculpatory evidence that she could have provided. Further, counsel's deficient performance prejudiced petitioner where there was a reasonable probability that, but for trial counsel's deficient performance, the outcome of the trial would have been different. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel affirmed the district court’s grant of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging a conviction of committing lewd and lascivious acts and attempting to dissuade the victim from reporting those acts. Petitioner Earl Eugene Cannedy alleged that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to present evidence that the victim had made a potentially exculpatory statement supporting the defense theory that the victim had a motive to fabricate the allegations. The panel first held that it could not consider any evidence taken by the district court during an evidentiary hearing, and that its review was limited to the record before the California Supreme Court. See Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011). The panel next held that, based on the record before the California Supreme Court, that court unreasonably rejected Cannedy’s ineffective assistance claim. Judge Kleinfeld dissented. He would reverse the district court’s decision because the California Supreme Court’s decision could reasonably have been made by fairminded jurists, consistent with Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011).
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on July 16, 2013.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.