Kirkpatrick v. Chappell, No. 14-99001 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of the petition for habeas relief based on lack of exhaustion claims. In this case, the district court dismissed claims challenging petitioner's murder conviction and death sentence, finding that, although he presented them to the California Supreme Court, he subsequently waived them by means of a handwritten, pro se filing. The panel held that there was insufficient evidence in the record to support a finding that petitioner's handwritten form constituted a valid waiver of his right to proceed and that the State failed to carry its burden to the contrary. Therefore, the district court erred by dismissing the claims as unexhausted and the court remanded so that the district court could adjudicate the claims on the merits.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus / Death Penalty. The panel vacated the district court’s order dismissing for lack of exhaustion claims in William Kirkpatrick, Jr’s habeas corpus petition challenging his murder conviction and death sentence, and remanded to the district court so that it may adjudicate those claims on the merits. The district court dismissed the claims as unexhausted on the ground that, although Kirkpatrick presented them to the California Supreme Court, he subsequently waived them by means of a handwritten, pro se filing. The California Supreme Court ruled that the handwritten form constituted a valid waiver despite the conclusion of the referee it appointed that there was not enough evidence that the waiver was made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. The district court agreed with the California Supreme Court. The panel held that there is insufficient evidence in the record to support a finding that Kirkpatrick’s handwritten form constituted a valid waiver of his right to proceed and that the State of California failed to carry its burden to the contrary. Consequently, the panel held that the district court erred in dismissing the claims as unexhausted. Dissenting, Judge Kozinski wrote that the majority failed to defer to the California Supreme Court whose findings are supported by more than enough evidence, and that under de KIRKPATRICK V. CHAPPELL 3 novo review Kirkpatrick would fare no better, but that none of this matters because California has no functional death penalty.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on June 13, 2019.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on February 13, 2020.
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.