United States Ninth Circuit

Habeas corpus petition by an Arizona state prisoner challenging his conviction and capital sentence for murder, was properly denied, where: 1) the state court did not unreasonably apply Strickland to deny petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claims; 2) petitioner's claim that counsel was ineffective by failing to recall his expert at sentencing to testify about the potential for rehabilitation was procedurally barred; 3) the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioner's requests for evidentiary hearings on his various ineffective assistance claims; 4) petitioner was not entitled to relief as to his claim that the trial judge considered victim impact evidence from the victim's family members during sentencing in violation of the Eighth Amendment, because there is no Supreme Court case squarely addressing the issue of whether a judge (as opposed to a jury) is barred from considering such evidence; and 5) petitioner's request to file a second petition is denied because petitioner did not demonstrate either due diligence or actual innocence as to his claims that were not presented in his first state habeas petition. (Amended opinion)

Appellate Information

• Decided 10/28/2013
• Published 10/28/2013

Judges

• IKUTA

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel