Ramirez v. Ryan, No. 10-99023 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Petitioner, convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of his girlfriend and her daughter, appealed the district court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Ninth Circuit reversed in part, holding that petitioner demonstrated cause and prejudice to overcome the procedural default of his ineffective assistance of trial claim. In this case, post conviction counsel, whom Arizona concedes performed deficiently, failed to raise a substantial claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in petitioner's initial state collateral proceeding. The panel remanded the claim for the district court to allow evidentiary development of petitioner's ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim.
The panel affirmed the district court's conclusion that petitioner's right to due process under Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985), was not violated; agreed that the Arizona state courts did not improperly exclude mitigating evidence that lacked a causal connection to his crime; and declined to expand the certificate of appealability to include the three uncertified issues raised by petitioner.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus / Death Penalty. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s denial of David Ramirez’s habeas corpus petition challenging his Arizona conviction and death sentence for the murders of his girlfriend and her daughter, and remanded. The panel explained that the district court—on remand for reconsideration of whether post-conviction counsel’s ineffectiveness constituted cause and prejudice under Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012), to overcome the procedural default of Ramirez’s claim of trial counsel’s ineffectiveness—erred by conducting a full merits review of the underlying ineffective assistance of counsel claim on an undeveloped record, rather than addressing whether the claim was “substantial.” The panel held that the underlying claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel was substantial, thus constituting “prejudice” under Martinez, because trial counsel failed to present or pursue evidence of Ramirez’s intellectual disability, failed to provide relevant and potentially mitigating evidence to the psychologist who evaluated Ramirez, and subsequently relied on the psychologist’s report, despite possessing contrary facts. The panel held that Ramirez established cause under Martinez because had post- conviction counsel raised the substantial claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, there is a reasonable probability that the result of the post-conviction proceedings would have been different. RAMIREZ V. RYAN 3 The panel held that the district court erred in denying Ramirez evidentiary development of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, and that on remand he is entitled to evidentiary development to litigate the merits of his ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim. The panel held that the district court correctly concluded that Ramirez’s due process rights under Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985), were not violated, as Ramirez received the assistance of an independent psychologist, and there was no impermissible waiver of self-representation. The panel held that the Arizona state courts did not unconstitutionally apply a causal nexus requirement to Ramirez’s mitigating evidence in violation of McKinney v. Ryan, 813 F.3d 798 (9th Cir. 2015). The panel declined to expand the certificate of appealability to include three uncertified issues. Dissenting in part, Judge Berzon would grant a certificate of appealability with regard to Ramirez’s claim under Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (prohibiting the execution of intellectually disabled persons); hold that the claim relates back to Ramirez’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim; and remand to the district court for further proceedings.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on August 24, 2020.
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.