Medina v. Chappell, No. 09-99015 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseDefendant, a California death row inmate, was convicted of the murders of four people. For the murders, the California courts imposed two death sentences, one in Orange County and one in Riverside County. Defendant filed habeas corpus petitions in both cases, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at various phases of each trial. The district court denied the petitions. The Ninth District affirmed, holding (1) counsel in the Orange County trial did not render deficient performance; (2) any deficient performance in the Riverside County trial did not result in prejudice to Defendant; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying a stay to determine Defendant’s competency while the Orange County petition was pending.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus / Death Penalty. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of Teofilo Medina, Jr.’s habeas corpus petitions challenging his murder convictions and two death sentences, one of which was imposed in Orange County, the other in Riverside County. Affirming the district court’s denial of the petition arising out of the Orange County case, the panel rejected Medina’s contention that trial counsel’s performance was deficient in his investigation and presentation of mitigation evidence relating to Medina’s childhood, and held that Medina did not establish prejudice. The panel rejected Medina’s contention that he is entitled to habeas relief because trial counsel provided ineffective assistance at the penalty phase by failing to obtain and present relevant mitigation evidence of Medina’s possible mental and emotional impairments. The panel held that counsel performed deficiently by failing to object, during cross-examination of a doctor during the sanity phase, to the prosecutor’s use of a study to remind the jury that people are capable of faking schizophrenia and fooling mental health workers. But the panel held that the failure to MEDINA V. CHAPPELL 3 object was not prejudicial during the penalty phase, and that counsel’s performance was not deficient with respect to the doctor’s testimony at the sanity phase. The panel explained that the Supreme Court’s holding in Ryan v. Gonzales, 133 S. Ct. 696 (2013), that 18 U.S.C. § 3599(a)(2) does not provide a statutory right to competency in federal habeas proceedings, is not limited to post-AEDPA cases, but that the portion of the Gonzales opinion constraining the discretion of district courts to issue stays is inapplicable to pre-AEDPA petitions such as the Orange County petition. The panel concluded that the district court nonetheless acted within its discretion in denying Medina’s request for a stay of his habeas proceedings due to his incompetency. Affirming the district court’s denial of the petition arising out of the Riverside County case, the panel rejected Medina’s contention that counsel’s failure to investigate Medina’s psychiatric history during the competency phase of the trial, and his resulting failure to provide this information to the experts who evaluated Medina’s competency, constituted ineffective assistance. Assuming without deciding that counsel performed deficiently by failing to investigate and present mitigation evidence at the penalty phase, and by failing to investigate a potential insanity defense, the panel denied relief because fairminded jurists could disagree as to whether any such deficient performance prejudiced Medina. 4 MEDINA V. CHAPPELL
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on April 16, 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.