Atwood v. Ryan, No. 14-99002 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief in petitioner's death penalty case where he was convicted of kidnapping and first degree murder. The panel rejected petitioner's argument that the Arizona Supreme Court's adjudication of his Eighth Amendment claim was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court; law enforcement misconduct claim; and two ineffective assistance of counsel claims regarding the failure to develop information regarding the victim's bones and the failure to present evidence from mental health experts.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus / Death Penalty. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition in a death penalty case. The petitioner was convicted after a jury trial and sentenced to death for kidnapping and first-degree felony murder. He claimed that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated by the use of an aggravating circumstance of a prior conviction for another offense for which under Arizona law a sentence of life imprisonment or death was imposable. The petitioner contended that the determination of his eligibility for the death penalty based on this aggravating factor was unconstitutionally arbitrary because Arizona subsequently determined that the conduct underlying his prior conviction for lewd and lascivious conduct under Cal. Penal Code § 288 was not so serious as to warrant a life sentence. The panel held that the Arizona Supreme Court’s adjudication of this claim was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the United States Supreme Court. The panel held that the state habeas court did not make an unreasonable determination of the facts by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on a claim of law enforcement misconduct. ATWOOD V. RYAN 3 The panel held that the petitioner did not establish ineffective assistance of trial counsel in the failure to develop information regarding the victim’s bones, which would have allowed counsel to challenge the State’s chronology implicating the petitioner in the murder. The panel held that the petitioner did not meet the requirements set forth in Martinez v. Ryan for overcoming the procedural default of a claim of ineffective assistance of sentencing counsel in the failure to present evidence from mental health experts because he did not show that the failure to raise this claim in state court resulted from ineffective assistance of state habeas counsel. The panel agreed with the district court’s conclusion, after an evidentiary hearing, that the claim of ineffective assistance of sentencing counsel lacked merit, and the petitioner therefore failed to establish ineffective assistance of state habeas counsel.
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.