Mitchell v. United States, No. 11-99003 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, convicted of eleven counts including two counts of first degree murder, appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion for habeas corpus relief, alleging that his team of defense lawyers rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. The court agreed with the district court that counsel did not fall below professional standards in either their investigation of a possible intoxication defense or their decision to pursue a different defense strategy. The court also agreed with the district court that petitioner’s legal team, during the sentencing phase, made a more-than-adequate investigation of possible mitigation, including his mental health and social history. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus/Death Penalty. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of federal prisoner Lezmond Mitchell’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his convictions under the Major Crimes Act for multiple offenses committed on the Navajo reservation including two counts of first-degree murder and multiple counts of robbery, and his conviction and death sentence under the Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994 for carjacking resulting in death. The § 2255 motion claimed that counsel was ineffective (1) at the guilt phase of the trial in failing to assert an intoxication defense, and (2) at the penalty phase for inadequately investigating, and for choosing not to present evidence of, Mitchell’s mental health, history of substance abuse, and troubled upbringing. The panel agreed with the district court that counsel did not fall below professional standards in either their investigation of a possible intoxication defense or their decision to pursue a different defense strategy of trying to portray Mitchell’s accomplice as the main malefactor. With respect to the penalty phase of the case, the panel also agreed with the district court that Mitchell’s legal team MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES 3 made a more-than-adequate investigation of possible mitigation, including his mental health and social history. Dissenting in part, Judge Reinhardt would grant relief with respect to the penalty phase because Mitchell was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel. He wrote that counsel’s “good guy” defense was unreasonable in light of the facts and circumstances of the crimes Mitchell committed, and also because the minimal investigation underlying counsel’s choice of strategy was constitutionally deficient.
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.