Demirdjian v. Gipson, No. 09-56453 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, convicted of murdering two teenage boys with intent to inflict torture, appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for habeas relief. Petitioner committed the murders when he was 15 years old. Petitioner contends his counsel performed deficiently by failing to challenge the prosecution’s statements as either improper comments on petitioner's decision not to testify, in violation of Griffin v. California, or improper shifting of the burden of proof to the defense. The court concluded that, because there was no actual prosecutorial error, defense counsel’s decision to rebut the prosecution’s comments directly rather than object at trial or on appeal was adequate, and this strategy did not undermine the reliability of petitioner’s conviction. Petitioner also contends that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment because it is the "functional equivalent" of a mandatory life-without-parole sentence, and he was a juvenile offender. The court concluded that there is a reasonable argument petitioner’s sentence is constitutional because it actually allows for the possibility of parole. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment dismissing California state prisoner Michael Demirdjian’s habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction and sentence for murdering two teenage boys with intent to inflict torture, committed when Demirdjian was 15 years old. Demirdjian claimed that his counsel was ineffective by failing to challenge statements by the prosecutor as either improper comments on Demirdjian’s decision not to testify, in violation of Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965), or improper shifting of the burden of proof to the defense. Under the deferential standard required by AEDPA, the panel concluded that there is a reasonable argument that, because there was no prosecutorial error, defense counsel’s decision to rebut the prosecution’s comments directly rather than object at trial or on appeal was adequate, and that this strategy did not undermine the reliability of Demirdjian’s conviction. Demirdjian also claimed that his sentence of two consecutive terms of 25 years to life violates the Eighth Amendment under Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), because it is the “functional equivalent” of a mandatory life-without-parole sentence and he was a juvenile offender. Applying the deferential AEDPA standard, the panel held that there is a reasonable argument that the DEMIRDJIAN V. GIPSON 3 sentence is constitutional because it actually allows for the possibility of parole. Dissenting, Judge Noonan wrote that trial counsel’s performance was constitutionally deficient because he failed to object to the prosecution’s improper attempts at burden shifting, multiple Griffin errors, and pleas to the jurors’ passions; that this deficient performance influenced the jury’s verdict; and that no reasonable argument exists to the contrary.
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.