Apelt v. Ryan, No. 15-99013 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's grant of a writ of habeas corpus based on petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) at sentencing and affirmed the district court's denial of relief on petitioner's other claims. The panel held that federal court review was not procedurally barred; vacated the district court's grant of relief because it could not find the Arizona Supreme Court's determination that petitioner's counsel's deficient performance at sentencing was not prejudicial to be clearly unreasonable; affirmed the denial of relief on petitioner's claims of inadequate funding to investigate mitigating evidence and mental disability; granted a certificate of appealability for petitioner's claims of an application of an unconstitutional causal nexus standard by the Arizona Supreme Court and for ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to challenge petitioner's competency to stand trial; and denied the claims on the merits.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus / Death Penalty. The panel vacated the district court’s judgment granting a writ of habeas corpus on Michael Apelt’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) at sentencing, and affirmed the district court’s denial of relief on Apelt’s other claims, in the state of Arizona’s appeal and Apelt’s cross appeal arising from his habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction and death sentence for first-degree murder. The panel held that while the state court’s alternate ruling on the merits of the IAC claims does not allow a federal court to ignore the state court’s finding of procedural default, it also does not bar a federal court from considering whether there is cause and prejudice excusing the default under Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012), and Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991). The panel held that counsel’s performance on Apelt’s first post-conviction petition was sufficiently deficient to provide cause for Apelt’s default. The panel agreed with the district court that Apelt was denied effective assistance of counsel at sentencing, but concluded that the state courts’ determination that counsel’s deficient performance at sentencing was not prejudicial was not unreasonable. The panel therefore vacated the district court’s grant of the writ. Regarding Apelt’s certified claims, the panel held (1) that Apelt has not shown that the state court’s denial of funding to APELT V. RYAN 3 investigate mitigation violated his constitutional rights; and (2) that Apelt has not met his burden of showing that the state court’s denial of his mental-disability claim under Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), is an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented. The panel certified for appeal Apelt’s claims (1) that the Arizona Supreme Court applied an unconstitutional causal connection requirement to his mitigation evidence; and (2) that counsel was ineffective at trial and sentencing for failing to challenge Apelt’s competency. The panel concluded that both claims are not persuasive.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on October 11, 2018.
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.