Clabourne v. Ryan, No. 09-99022 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, convicted of murder and sentenced to death, appealed the denial of his petition for federal habeas petition relief. The district court certified one issue for appeal, based on petitioner's argument that the Arizona Supreme Court refused to consider mitigation evidence contrary to Eddings v. Oklahoma, specifically evidence regarding his mental illness. The court held that the Arizona Supreme Court did in fact consider, and gave weight to, petitioner's mental condition. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's denial of this claim. After consideration, the court declined to certify petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability for other claims. The court did issue a certificate of appealability as to two additional claims, both alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at the 1997 resentencing. The district court denied habeas relief as to those claims because they had been procedurally defaulted. In light of Martinez v. Ryan, the court vacated the district court's denial of habeas relief as to petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure of his counsel at resentencing to object to the court's consideration of a confession petitioner had given to the police in 1982. However, the court affirmed the denial of habeas relief as to petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's alleged failure to submit additional psychological evidence.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus/Death Penalty. The panel affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court’s denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition claiming that the state court refused to consider mitigating evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel. The panel first affirmed the district court’s denial of petitioner’s claim that the state supreme court refused to consider mitigating evidence of petitioner’s mental condition at sentencing, because the record reflected that the state court did give weight to such evidence. The panel was unpersuaded by petitioner’s argument that the state court applied a causal nexus test to the evidence. The panel issued a certificate of appealability as to two claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at resentencing (petitioner was resentenced to death after his initial capital sentence was reversed). The panel vacated the denial of relief as to petitioner’s procedurally defaulted claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the sentencing court’s consideration of a confession that petitioner had given to the police in 1982. The panel explained that there may be merit to petitioner’s claim, and remanded for the district court to consider the claim in light of Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012). The panel affirmed the denial of relief as to petitioner’s claim that counsel was ineffective by filing to obtain additional mitigating evidence.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on August 1, 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.