Andrews v. Davis, No. 09-99012 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
In this case, the Ninth Circuit withdrew its previous opinion, denied as moot a petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc; and filed a superseding opinion.
Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of all but one of the claims raised in his petition for writ of habeas corpus and the state cross-appealed the district court's grant of relief on petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase of his capital murder trial. The panel dismissed as unripe the claim the district court certified for appeal, and denied petitioner's motion to expand the certificate of appealability to include uncertified claims. The panel reversed the district court's grant of relief on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim because, under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1), the California Supreme Court did not unreasonably apply Supreme Court precedent in concluding that petitioner was not prejudiced by any deficient performance by his counsel.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus/Death Penalty. The panel withdrew an opinion filed August 5, 2015; denied as moot a petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc; and filed a superseding opinion in an appeal and cross-appeal arising from Jesse James Andrews’s conviction and capital sentence for three murders. The panel reversed the district court’s grant of relief on Andrews’s ineffective-assistance claim that he was prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to investigate and present additional mitigating evidence at the penalty phase of his trial. The panel held that 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. The panel dismissed as unripe the sole claim certified by the district court for appeal – that California’s use of its lethal injection protocol to execute Andrews would violate his ANDREWS V. DAVIS 3 Eighth Amendment rights. The panel held that because no new protocol was in place at the time the district court ruled on the claim, the district court erred in entertaining the claim. 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. Dissenting in part, Judge Murguia would affirm the district court's order granting Andrews relief due to ineffective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase of his trial. 4 ANDREWS V. DAVIS
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on August 5, 2015.
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.