Greenway v. Ryan, No. 14-15309 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit previously affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing, but the panel remanded for consideration of his claims of ineffective assistance at trial and on direct appeal. After the district court denied these claims, petitioner sought review from the Ninth Circuit.
In this appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that it need not consider petitioner's argument that the district court erred in determining that some claims were outside the scope of the Ninth Circuit's remand, because that determination does not affect the scope of the issues before the panel here; counsel was not ineffective for failing to adequately present an overall defense theory; counsel need not explore the possibility of a mental incapacity defense of impulsivity where such a defense would have been counterproductive; and petitioner's claim that trial counsel was ineffective during voir dire in failing to discover that a juror had been the victim of a violent crime that would have disqualified that juror was also without merit. The panel denied a certificate of appealability as to all other claims and affirmed the district court's judgment.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus/Death Penalty. The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment on remand denying Arizona state prisoner Richard Greenway’s habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction and death sentence. The panel wrote that because the determination does not affect the scope of the issues before it in this appeal, it need not consider Greenway’s argument that the district court erred in determining that some claims were outside the scope of this court’s remand. The panel held that neither of Greenway’s certified claims of ineffective assistance of counsel has merit. As to his claim that trial counsel failed to present an overall defense theory, the panel held that ineffectiveness has not been shown. As to his claim that trial counsel should have explored the possibility of a mental incapacity defense of impulsivity in order to negate premeditation, the panel concluded that this Christensen defense would have been counterproductive. The panel also deemed meritless Greenway’s claim – as to which the panel asked for supplemental briefing – that trial counsel was ineffective during voir dire in failing to discover that a juror had been the victim of a violent crime that would have disqualified that juror. GREENWAY V. RYAN 3 The panel denied a certificate of appealability as to all other claims. Concurring, Judge Bea would find that much of Greenway’s ineffective-assistance claim based on trial counsel’s failure to challenge and remove a juror was not fairly – or at all – presented in any state court proceeding and is therefore procedurally barred.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on August 8, 2017.
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.