Smith v. Mahoney

Summary

The Ninth Circuit reviewed Ronald Smith's federal habeas claims arising from his Montana death sentences, including ineffective assistance of counsel during the original sentencing and challenges to a later resentencing. The court held that counsel's performance was deficient but that Smith failed to establish prejudice, and it affirmed the district court's denial of his remaining claims concerning mitigating evidence, judicial bias, and the Eighth Amendment. The document is an order and amended per curiam opinion filed in 2010.

Holdings

1. Counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness because counsel failed to investigate the facts of the crimes, investigate Smith's mental state, and discuss possible defenses before Smith pleaded guilty. Smith nevertheless was not entitled to habeas relief because he failed to establish prejudice: there was no reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would have rejected his determined decision to plead guilty and seek the death penalty and insisted on going to trial.
2. AEDPA's certificate-of-appealability requirement and one-year statute of limitations did not apply because the appellate proceeding and the underlying habeas case were initiated before AEDPA's effective date; the later amendment remained part of the same pending case.
3. The sentencing court did not violate Lockett by failing to treat evidence comparing Smith's sentence with sentences imposed on other defendants as constitutionally required mitigating evidence.
4. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying discovery and an evidentiary hearing because Smith's allegations did not sufficiently show that Judge Larson was actually biased or that further factual development could establish a constitutional violation.
5. Smith's Eighth Amendment claim based on the length of his incarceration on death row could not be granted on habeas review because recognizing the proposed constitutional rule would be new under Teague and was not compelled by precedent existing when his conviction became final.

Questions Presented

1. Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to investigate the crime and Smith's mental state and failing to advise him about possible defenses before he pleaded guilty and requested the death penalty.
2. Whether AEDPA's certificate-of-appealability requirement and statute of limitations applied to Smith's amended habeas petition.
3. Whether the sentencing court violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to consider proportionality evidence as mitigating evidence.
4. Whether the resentencing judge was constitutionally biased or whether the district court abused its discretion by denying discovery and an evidentiary hearing on bias.
5. Whether Smith's approximately twenty-five years on death row made continued incarceration and execution unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment.

Disposition

affirmed