Andrews v. Davis, No. 09-99012 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePetitioner appealed from the district court's denial of all but one of the claims raised in his 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas petition. The state cross-appealed the district court's grant of relief on petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim for counsel's failure to investigate and present additional mitigating evidence at the penalty phase of petitioner's capital murder trial. Because the state court’s rejection of petitioner’s penalty phase ineffective assistance of counsel claim was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent, the court denied relief on this claim. The court concluded that petitioner was not prejudiced and reversed the district court's decision on this issue. Because petitioner has not made a “substantial showing” that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated, the court denied a Certificate of Appealability (COA) on this claim. Further, the court denied a COA on petitioner's four uncertified claims alleging that trial counsel were ineffective for failing to investigate and present four categories of evidence. Finally, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion for an evidentiary hearing.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus/Death Penalty. The panel dismissed as unripe the sole claim certified by the district court for appeal, denied a motion to expand the certificate of appealability, and reversed the district court’s grant of relief on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a case in which Jesse James Andrews challenges his conviction and capital sentence for three murders. The panel reversed the district court’s grant of relief on Andrews’s claim that he was prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to investigate and present additional mitigating evidence at the penalty phase of his trial, because, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), the California Supreme Court did not unreasonably apply Supreme Court precedent in concluding that Andrews was not prejudiced by any deficient performance. Because California has no lethal injection protocol currently in place, the panel dismissed as unripe Andrews’s certified claim that California’s use of its lethal injection ANDREWS V. DAVIS 3 protocol to execute him would violate his Eighth Amendment rights. The panel denied Andrews’s request to certify for appeal his uncertified claims of unconstitutional delay between sentencing and execution, ineffective assistance of counsel, failure to disclose material exculpatory evidence and false testimony, and destruction of evidence. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Andrews’s motion for an evidentiary hearing.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on August 1, 2017.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on April 26, 2018.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on December 16, 2019.
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.