Yun Hseng Liao v. Junious, No. 14-55897 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePetitioner was convicted of assaulting and attempted premeditated murder. Defendant served his sentence and is out of prison on parole. The Superior Court concluded in a decision spoken from the bench that trial counsel’s performance had been constitutionally defective by failing to secure medical evidence to support his primary expert’s sleepwalking opinion – a conclusion with which the prosecution agreed. The Superior Court found, however, that counsel’s failure had not been prejudicial. Petitioner then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the petition. The court reversed, concluding that the Superior Court’s decision was (1) based on an unreasonable determination of the facts, and (2) objectively unreasonable in its application of clearly established Federal constitutional law. The court remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel reversed the district court’s denial of California state prisoner Yun Hseng Liao’s habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction for assaulting and attempting with premeditation to kill his ex-girlfriend’s teenage son, and remanded. Liao’s unsuccessful defense was that the incident happened while he was in a state of unconsciousness during an episode of sleepwalking, and thus, that he lacked the intent required for the crimes with which he was charged. During further proceedings on Liao’s ineffective assistance claim after newly discovered evidence revealed a significant lapse on trial counsel’s part, the Superior Court concluded that trial counsel’s performance had been constitutionally defective by failing to secure medical evidence to support Liao’s primary expert’s sleepwalking opinion, but that counsel’s failure had not been prejudicial. The panel concluded that the Superior Court’s decision that Liao suffered no prejudice was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts and was objectively unreasonable in its application of clearly established Federal constitutional law. LIAO V. JUNIOUS 3
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.