Crace v. Herzog, No. 13-35650 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Petitioner was convicted of two misdemeanor offenses and one count of attempted second degree assault stemming from an incident in which he brandished a sword at a police officer. The attempted assault conviction was petitioner’s third strike under Washington’s three-strikes law, and he received a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Petitioner then sought postconviction relief under Strickland v. Washington, arguing that his trial counsel was deficient for failing to request a jury instruction on “unlawful display of a weapon,” a lesser included offense of second degree assault, which would avoid him getting a third strike. The Washington Supreme Court held that, because petitioner’s jury had found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of attempted second-degree assault, Strickland required a reviewing court
to presume that the jury would have reached the same verdict even if instructed on a lesser offense. Consequently, the state court concluded that defense counsel’s failure to request a lesser-included-offense instruction caused no prejudice to petitioner. However, the district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and granted petitioner habeas corpus relief. The court concluded that the state court's approach to Strickland was objectively unreasonable and therefore, the decision received no deference. The court found it reasonably probable that, if given an additional option, the jury would have convicted petitioner only of unlawful display of a weapon - which, unlike assault and attempted assault, has no intent requirement. This probability is “sufficient to undermine [the court's] confidence in the outcome” of the trial and satisfies the prejudice prong of Strickland. Finally, the court concluded that petitioner's attorney’s performance was clearly deficient. The court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment granting a habeas corpus petition brought by a Washington state prisoner who was convicted by a jury of two misdemeanor offenses and one count of attempted second degree assault, a felony, and received a life sentence without the possibility of parole under Washington’s three-strikes law. Petitioner claimed that his trial counsel was deficient for failing to request a jury instruction on “unlawful display of a weapon,” a lesser included offense of second degree assault, because, had he been convicted of unlawful display of a weapon, rather than attempted second degree assault, he would have avoided a third strike. Agreeing with the Third Circuit, the panel held that the Washington Supreme Court’s rejection of petitioner’s claim under Strickland v. Washington was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law under the Anti- Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. The panel held that, in determining whether there was a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceeding would have been different if counsel had performed adequately, Strickland’s prejudice prong required an assessment of the likelihood that petitioner’s jury would have convicted only on the lesser included offense, rather than an assessment of whether sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict. CRACE V. HERZOG 3 On de novo review, the panel concluded that petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel warranted relief. The panel concluded that it was reasonably probable that, if given an additional option, the jury would have convicted the petitioner only of unlawful display of a weapon. The panel also concluded that counsel’s failure to request the lesser included offense instruction constituted deficient performance under Strickland. Dissenting, Judge Callahan wrote that the Washington Supreme Court’s decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, and so AEDPA compelled deference to the state court. Accordingly, she would reverse the district court’s grant of habeas relief.
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.