Ellis v. Harrison, No. 16-56188 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief where petitioner contended that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney held deeply racist beliefs about African Americans in general and him in particular. The panel rejected petitioner's claim in light of Mayfield v. Woodford, 270 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc), where petitioner conceded that he was unaware of his attorney's racism until years after his conviction was final and failed to identify any acts or omissions by his attorney that fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of California inmate Ezzard Ellis’s habeas corpus petition in which he contended that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney held deeply racist beliefs about African Americans in general and him in particular. The panel held that Mayfield v. Woodford, 270 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc), requires rejection of Ellis’s claim because Ellis concedes that he was unaware of his attorney’s racism until years after his conviction was final and fails to identify any acts or omissions by his attorney that fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Concurring, Judge Nguyen, joined by Judges Hawkins and Tashima, wrote that when an attorney expresses such utter contempt and indifference about the fate of his minority clients as the attorney did here, he has ceased providing the reasonably competent representation that the Sixth Amendment demands. She wrote that if the panel were writing on a blank slate, she would vote to grant relief, but that she cannot in good faith distinguish Ellis’s case from Mayfield.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on January 30, 2019.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on January 15, 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.