Sully v. Ayers, Jr., No. 08-99011 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, convicted of six counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition. Petitioner challenged four certified claims and raised six uncertified claims, with respect to which the court granted a certificate of appealability. The court concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment with respect to Claim 3 (trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present evidence of mental disorders as a mitigating factor), Claim 4 (trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present a mental state defense), Claim 5 (trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present evidence of petitioner's incompetence and to request competency hearings), and Claim 11 (petitioner was incompetent to stand trial and waived fundamental rights), where petitioner failed to establish that the California Supreme Court's decision denying his claims necessarily involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. In regards to the six additional claims, the court concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment on those claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court in all respects.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus/Death Penalty. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging a murder conviction and capital sentence. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of relief as to petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims. The panel held that petitioner failed to show prejudice as to his claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to: investigate and present mitigating evidence of his mental disorders at sentencing, investigate and present a mental state defense, investigate and present evidence of incompetence or request a competency hearing, or investigate and impeach the credibility of a witness. The panel also affirmed the denial of relief as to petitioner’s claim that counsel was ineffective by calling a deputy district attorney to testify during the penalty phase, given the “already staggering” aggravating evidence presented. The panel also held that the state court was not unreasonable in concluding that petitioner was competent to stand trial and waive fundamental rights. The panel held that the trial court’s limitation of petitioner’s cross-examination of a witness did not violate the Confrontation Clause and was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law because the excluded topics of cross-examination likely would not have affected the jury’s impression of the witness’ credibility. The panel also affirmed the denial of relief as to petitioner’s claim of cumulative prejudice from counsel’s error, as well as the district court’s denial of an evidentiary hearing.
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.