Dickinson v. Shinn, No. 20-15175 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a habeas corpus petition challenging petitioner's Arizona state court conviction for attempted second-degree murder. In this case, the trial court misstated Arizona law in its instructions to the jury by implying that a defendant could be guilty of attempted second-degree murder if he merely intended to cause serious physical injury, not death. Furthermore, trial counsel failed to object to the erroneous instruction. Petitioner petitioned for state post-conviction relief, with the assistance of different counsel, but his counsel did not raise any claims related to the instructional error, and the state trial and appellate courts denied relief. The district court ultimately denied his federal habeas corpus petition, declining to excuse petitioner's procedural default of these claims.
The panel declined to excuse petitioner's procedural default under under Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012), so that he could seek habeas relief on the basis of constitutionally ineffective assistance of trial counsel (IATC). The panel concluded that petitioner cannot satisfy Strickland's prejudice requirement for an IATC claim for failure to object to a jury instruction based on the consequent loss of a more favorable standard of appellate review. The panel also concluded that petitioner failed to demonstrate a substantial IATC claim, and accordingly, his procedural default of that claim is not excused under Martinez.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of Zane Dickinson’s habeas corpus petition challenging his Arizona state court conviction for attempted second-degree murder in a case in which the trial court misstated Arizona law in its instructions to the jury by implying that a defendant could be guilty of attempted second-degree murder if he merely intended to cause serious physical injury, not death. Trial counsel failed to object to the erroneous instruction. With different counsel, Dickinson unsuccessfully challenged the error on direct appeal. He petitioned for state post-conviction relief, but his counsel did not raise any claims related to the instructional error, and the state trial and appellate courts denied relief. The district court denied Dickinson’s federal habeas corpus petition, declining to excuse Dickinson’s procedural default of these claims. In this appeal, Dickinson asked this court to excuse his procedural default under Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012), so that he could seek habeas relief on the basis of constitutionally ineffective assistance of trial counsel (IATC). Dickinson asserted two theories in an effort to establish prejudice and excuse the procedural default. DICKINSON V. SHINN 3 He argued that his trial counsel’s failure to object prejudiced him because it deprived him of a more favorable standard of review on direct appeal. Rejecting this theory on a different ground than the district court did, the panel held that as a matter of federal law, Dickinson cannot satisfy Strickland’s prejudice requirement for his IATC claim merely by showing that trial counsel’s failure to object to a jury instruction deprived him of a more favorable standard of review on direct appeal. Dickinson also argued that his IATC claim is substantial because his trial counsel’s failure to object to the erroneous instruction prejudiced him at trial. The panel noted that the record amply supports the Arizona Court of Appeals’ characterization of the trial, and held that Dickinson cannot demonstrate a reasonable probability that the trial would have had a different outcome without the erroneous instruction, where the jury heard overwhelming evidence that Dickinson intended to kill the victim, it heard only a few passing comments that it could have conceivably construed as evidence that Dickinson did not intend to kill the victim, and neither the State nor defense counsel ever suggested that Dickinson intended only to cause serious physical injury.
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.