Clark v. Arnold, No. 12-15601 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, convicted of murdering a law enforcement officer in the line of duty, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition. The court concluded, in light of the "doubly deferential" standard, that it was not contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington for the state court to determine that petitioner's trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by failing to preserve explicitly the issue of observation evidence. Likewise, counsel was not ineffective for failing to request a reevaluation of petitioner's competency. Finally, the court held that petitioner's claim of ineffective appellate counsel is procedurally defaulted. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment denying Eric Michael Clark’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging a conviction of murdering a law enforcement officer in the line of duty. Clark argued his trial counsel was ineffective under Strickland v. Washington for not preserving “observation evidence” that could negate the mens rea element of the crime and for failing to request a reevaluation of his competency during trial. He also argued that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise those issues on appeal. In light of the “doubly deferential” standard afforded to Strickland claims brought under § 2254, the panel concluded that it was not contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, Strickland for the state court to determine that Clark’s trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by failing to preserve explicitly the issue of observation evidence or by failing to request a reevaluation of Clark’s competency. The panel held that Clark’s claim of ineffective appellate counsel is procedurally defaulted.
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.