Summary
This Ninth Circuit opinion affirms the district court's denial of a state prisoner's habeas corpus petition challenging his Nevada conviction and death sentence for first-degree murder and robbery. The panel held that the petitioner failed to exercise due diligence in developing the factual predicate for his ineffective assistance of counsel claims during state post-conviction proceedings, thereby barring a federal evidentiary hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). Additionally, the court found no prejudice from trial counsel's performance, upheld the Nevada Supreme Court's appellate scrutiny of the death sentence under AEDPA standards, and denied certificates of appealability on several other issues.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing under 28 U.S.C. §2254(e)(2).
- Whether Bejarano’s trial counsel was ineffective and, if so, whether any deficiency was prejudicial.
- Whether Bejarano’s appellate counsel was ineffective and whether the claims relate back under the relation‑back doctrine.
- Whether the Nevada Supreme Court provided adequate appellate scrutiny of the death sentence under the AEDPA standards.
- Whether the certificate of appealability should be expanded to include timeliness determinations.
Holdings
- The district court did not abuse its discretion; Bejarano failed to exercise the required due diligence in developing the factual predicate for his claim, so the denial is affirmed.
- Even assuming deficient performance, Bejarano was not prejudiced; the claim is denied.
- The appellate‑counsel claims either fail to relate back or, where they do, are not prejudiced; the district court’s denial is affirmed.
- The Nevada Supreme Court’s review was appropriate; its reweighing/harmless‑error analysis satisfied AEDPA’s deferential standard.
- The panel granted the motion to expand the COA, allowing review of the district court’s timeliness findings.
Key quotations
“We affirm the district court’s denial of Bejarano’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.” (*68)
“Because Bejarano failed to diligently present his claims to the state courts, the district court did not abuse its discretion.” (*3)
“The Nevada Supreme Court concluded that ‘[i]t is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that absent the invalid aggravators the jury would have still sentenced Bejarano to death.’” (*57)
Factual background
In 1987 John Bejarano shot and killed cab driver Roland Wright in Reno, Nevada. He was convicted of first‑degree murder, robbery and related felonies and sentenced to death. After years of state post‑conviction petitions, he filed a federal habeas petition challenging the conviction, sentence, and counsel’s performance.
Procedural history
The district court dismissed Bejarano’s federal habeas petition and denied his motion for an evidentiary hearing, finding procedural defaults and lack of diligence. The Nevada Supreme Court had previously dismissed his state post‑conviction claims. The Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s determinations de novo for the evidentiary‑hearing issue and deferentially for ineffective‑assistance claims.