Anthony Dewayne Hammonds v. CHARLES M. HARRISON, Warden

* The Honorable Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge for the District of
Nevada, sitting by designation.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTHONY DEWAYNE HAMMONDS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CHARLES M. HARRISON, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 09-55124
D.C. No. 5:05-cv-00379-ODW-OP
Central District of California
ORDER
Before: SCHROEDER and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and NAVARRO, District
Judge.*
The memorandum disposition in the above-captioned matter filed on
October 12, 2011 is amended as follows:
At page 4, change <In light of the evidence presented at trial that Hammonds knew
about the methamphetamine lab and continued to visit, if not live with, his son at
the property, the state appellate court concluded that Hammonds’s counsel made a
reasonable tactical decision not to interview the witnesses because certain
testimony was immaterial, and the admission of the remaining testimony would not
have resulted in a different outcome.> to <In light of the evidence presented at trial
FILED
NOV 02 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

that Hammonds knew about the methamphetamine lab and continued to visit, if not
live with, his son at the property, the state appellate court concluded that
Hammonds’s counsel could have made a reasonable tactical decision not to
interview the witnesses because certain testimony was immaterial, and concluded
that there was no prejudice because the state appellate court “[could not] find there
is a reasonable probability, sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome . . .
that defendant would have obtained a more favorable trial result had counsel
interviewed and called the witnesses identified in defendant’s new trial motions.”>
The panel has voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing. The petition
for panel rehearing is DENIED.
No future petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc will be entertained.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

-- 2 of 2 --