Justia U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Petitioner asserted that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective by failing to request a mental health expert in advance of the sentencing hearing. The Ninth Circuit held that the state court record demonstrates that trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective by failing to secure a defense mental health expert, and that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254(d)(1), the Arizona Supreme Court’s contrary conclusion was an unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and its progeny. Holding that the state post-conviction review (PCR) court’s decision was also based on an unreasonable determination of the facts under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254(d)(2), the panel agreed with Petitioner that (1) the PCR court employed a defective fact-finding process when it denied PCR counsel’s funding request for a defense neuropsychological expert, effectively preventing the development of Claim 1; and (2) the state court’s failure to hold a hearing on Claim 1 resulted in an unreasonable determination of the facts   In Claim 2, Petitioner asserted that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective by failing to seek neurological or neuropsychological testing prior to sentencing. The panel wrote that counsel’s failure to promptly seek neuropsychological testing ran contrary to his obligation to pursue reasonable investigations under Strickland, and in particular, his obligation to investigate and present evidence of a defendant’s mental defect.
Thus, the panel filed an amended opinion, denied a petition for panel rehearing, and denied on behalf of the court a petition for rehearing en banc and remanded to the district court with instructions to issue the writ. View "DANNY JONES V. CHARLES RYAN" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. Section 3582(c)(1)(A). The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s denial Defendant’s for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. Section 3582(c)(1)(A), and remanded. The panel held that a district court may consider the First Step Act’s non-retroactive changes to sentencing law, in combination with other factors particular to the individual defendant, when determining whether extraordinary and compelling reasons exist for a sentence reduction under Section 3582(c)(1)(A). Because the district court declined to consider the First Step Act’s non-retroactive changes to the mandatory minimum sentencing requirements of 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c) when considering whether to reduce Defendant’s sentence, the panel remanded for the district court to reassess the motion under the correct legal standard. View "USA V. HOWARD CHEN" on Justia Law

]Defendant was caught in a government sting operation, having agreed to rob a fake drug stash house to obtain cocaine. When the jury found Reed guilty of the Section 924(c) firearm offense, it did not specify whether he had used a firearm in relation to the robbery conspiracy or the drug trafficking conspiracy (or both. Defendant sought relief from his Section 924(c) conviction under Section 2255, arguing that the jury had used the now-invalid Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy to convict him under Section 924(c).   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 relief. The panel held that where the jury is instructed on both a valid and an invalid predicate offense and fails to specify which predicate forms the basis for a Section 924(c) conviction, a court should use harmless-error review under Brecht v Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993), to determine whether relief is appropriate. Applying the harmless error standard to this case, the panel held that the instructional error did not have a substantial and injurious effect on the jury because the two conspiracies were inextricably intertwined such that the jury must have used the valid drug trafficking predicate to convict Defendant of the Section 924(c) offense. View "USA V. DEONTE REED" on Justia Law

Defendant is serving a lengthy prison sentence for armed robbery. He was arrested with tens of thousands of dollars in cash. However, pertaining to this case, the government's case at trial fell apart based on prosecutorial misconduct. The government never initiated civil forfeiture proceedings.In this case focused on who has a right to the money seized from Defendant upon his arrest, the Ninth Circuit held that neither party can prove they are entitled to it. Defendant is not entitled to the money because there is considerable evidence the money was stolen. The government is not entitled to the money because did not follow the necessary procedures. View "USA V. BRIAN WRIGHT" on Justia Law

Defendant, a Mexican citizen and United States legal permanent resident, was arrested while attempting to sell five pounds of methamphetamine to a confidential informant. He was charged with possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute and conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine—both offenses for which Defendant could be removed from the United States were he convicted. Defendant pleaded guilty to the conspiracy count. The Government then dismissed the possession with intent to distribute count. The district court denied on the merits Defendant’s first and second claims in the Section 2255 motion; it denied the third claim on the ground that Defendant, through his plea agreement, had waived his right to bring the claim in a post-conviction proceeding.   The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment on the first claim, affirmed the district court’s judgment on the second and third claims, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the first claim. The panel wrote that because the claim attacks whether Defendant had knowledge of the effect of his guilty plea, it was not waived by Defendant’s collateral-attack waiver. The panel held that the record does not conclusively establish that Defendant is entitled to no relief on his first claim and that it was therefore an abuse of discretion to deny the first claim without an evidentiary hearing.   Because the record does not contain any evidence showing that Defendant’s attorney rendered deficient performance under Strickland, the panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Defendant’s second claim without an evidentiary hearing as conclusively disproved by the record. View "USA V. COSME RODRIGUEZ" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of the murder of an Oregon Department of Corrections Director. However, since trial, another man has confessed to the killing and nearly all the witnesses who directly implicated Petitioner have recanted their testimony. Petitioner sought federal habeas relief making various claims including constitutional violations based on the trial court’s exclusion of the other man's confession. The constitutional claims are procedurally defaulted because Petitoner failed to raise them in state court as required.The Ninth Circuit held that Petitioner's procedural default is excused under the “actual innocence” exception set forth in Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995). The panel wrote that other man's detailed and compelling confessions, when considered with the recantations of nearly all the State’s key witnesses, are more than sufficient to satisfy Schlup’s standard, as it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted Petitioner in light of the new evidence.Reaching the merits of Petitioner's claim, the Ninth Circuit found that the trial court violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by excluding evidence of the confessor's guilt. View "FRANK GABLE V. MAX WILLIAMS" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed from the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254, challenging his conviction and death sentence imposed in California state court. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial.   The California Supreme Court, whose opinion on direct review is the last reasoned decision on this issue, concluded that both the prosecutor’s questioning of the challenged jurors and the excusals were proper. Applying the deferential review under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) to the last reasoned state court decision, the panel held that the California Supreme Court’s conclusion was neither an unreasonable factual determination nor contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent.   In the second claim certified by the district court, Petitioner contended that his trial counsel were ineffective because the excusals were based upon counsel’s failure to investigate, adequately object, and/or rehabilitate the prospective jurors. On this issue, the California Supreme Court’s denial of Petitioner second state petition is the last reasoned decision. The panel took this opportunity to make explicit what has to this point been implicit: the California Supreme Court’s summary denial is a decision on the merits and thus entitled to AEDPA deference. The panel held that Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption that defense counsel’s conduct fell within the wide range of professional assistance, and failed to show how trial counsel’s failure to object or try to rehabilitate some of the jurors prejudiced him. View "SERGIO OCHOA V. RONALD DAVIS" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession with intent to distribute ecstasy after Government officers discovered large quantities of illegal drugs in two packages falsely labeled as containing documents from a German law firm. Defendant unsuccessfully challenged the admissibility of the evidence in a pre-trial motion to suppress. The Ninth Circuit held that, even if the evidence was seized in violation of Defendant's constitutional rights, admission was justified under the independent source doctrine. The court also rejected Defendant's challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. View "USA V. TONY SAELEE" on Justia Law

Defendants were indicted on many charges related to their participation in the Canta Ranas gang in Whittier, California. Defendants were ultimately convicted on RICO conspiracy. On appeal, Defendants raise multiple challenges to the admissibility of the government's expert witness's testimony.The Ninth Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions, finding that the district court had broad latitude when determining reliability and that, in this case, the district court did not commit an abuse of discretion in failing to hold a hearing. The district court erred in failing to put its credibility findings on the record; however, any error was harmless. View "USA V. ENRIQUE HOLGUIN" on Justia Law

Petitioner argued that application of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. Section 2254(d), is unconstitutionally retroactive—i.e., that the relevant event to which AEDPA’s legal consequences attached is the automatic appeal of his capital sentence in state court, which occurred before AEDPA’s effective date.   In a per curiam opinion addressing all issues except penalty phase prejudice, and a separate majority opinion addressing penalty phase prejudice, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment denying Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition challenging his California conviction and death sentence for murder.   The panel wrote that the California Supreme Court’s conclusion on direct appeal that Michaels did not unambiguously invoke either his right to counsel or his right to silence with respect to all questioning is fully supported by the record. The California Supreme Court did recognize that Petitioner selectively invoked his right not to answer a specific question as protected by Miranda, but the California Supreme Court neither determined precisely what question Petitioner had declared off-limits nor whether the ensuing interrogation impermissibly violated Petitioner's invocation of his right to silence with regard to the subject covered by that question. The panel held that the California Supreme Court’s decision to ignore a defendant's unambiguous and unequivocal selective invocation of his right to silence as to an area of inquiry during a custodial interrogation, requiring instead that the refusal be repeated in response to each question regarding the subject matter as to which the right was earlier invoked, was contrary to the law clearly established by Miranda and its progeny. View "KURT MICHAELS V. RON DAVIS, ET AL" on Justia Law