Summary
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of Charles B. Rienhardt’s federal habeas corpus petition challenging his Arizona convictions and death sentence. The court rejected or found procedurally barred his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims concerning an attorney’s potential conflict, a romantic interest in a witness, and mitigation evidence. The court also declined to expand the certificate of appealability to reach additional claims concerning admission of attorney-interview evidence and the causal nexus between the crime and mitigating factors.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court properly refused to consider new evidence or permit further development of the evidentiary record under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2) and Shinn v. Ramirez.
- Whether the state court's rejection of Rienhardt's ineffective-assistance and attorney-as-witness conflict claim was contrary to or an unreasonable application of Cuyler v. Sullivan, United States v. Cronic, and Strickland v. Washington.
- Whether Rienhardt's attorney-romance ineffective-assistance claim was procedurally defaulted and, if so, whether Martinez v. Ryan excused the default.
- Whether Rienhardt was prejudiced by counsel's alleged failure to investigate, advise about, or present mitigation evidence at sentencing.
- Whether the court should expand the certificate of appealability to reach the evidence and causal-nexus claims.
Holdings
- Because Rienhardt failed to develop the factual basis of his ineffective-assistance claims in state court, the district court correctly refused to consider his new evidence or permit further evidentiary development. Under § 2254(e)(2) and Shinn v. Ramirez, ineffective assistance by state post-conviction counsel does not excuse the failure to develop the state-court record, and new evidence may not be used to establish cause and prejudice under Martinez.
- The state court's rejection of Rienhardt's claim that counsel had a personal conflict because the prosecution might call him as a witness was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of Cuyler v. Sullivan or United States v. Cronic. Cuyler's presumed-prejudice rule has not been extended by the Supreme Court beyond concurrent joint representation, and counsel's performance did not constitute a complete denial of counsel under Cronic. In any event, Rienhardt failed to establish Strickland prejudice.
- The attorney-romance ineffective-assistance claim was procedurally defaulted, and Rienhardt failed to establish cause to excuse the default under Martinez.
- The exhausted mitigation subclaims failed because, even assuming deficient representation, Rienhardt could not show Strickland prejudice after expressly waiving presentation of mitigation evidence. The procedurally defaulted subclaims concerning a sentencing memorandum and neuropsychological testing also did not warrant relief.
- The court declined to expand the certificate of appealability to include the evidence claim and the causal-nexus claim because Rienhardt failed to show that reasonable jurists would debate the district court's assessment of those claims.
Key quotations
“a federal court may not hold an evidentiary hearing—or otherwise consider new evidence—to assess cause and prejudice under Martinez.” (at 25)
“The standards created by Strickland and AEDPA are both highly deferential, and when the two apply in tandem, review is doubly so.” (at 26)
“A “sentencer, and the [appellate court] on review, may determine the weight to be given relevant mitigating evidence. But they may not give it no weight by excluding such evidence from their consideration.”” (at 38)
Factual background
Rienhardt arranged a methamphetamine transaction with Michael Ellis and later threatened Ellis, transported him into the mountains, and killed him with Charles Nadeau. After the killing, Rienhardt and his accomplices attempted to burn the vehicle used in the crime and were arrested while fleeing; police found blood, Ellis's wallet, and a shotgun in or near the vehicle. At trial, the prosecution introduced testimony from Christina George about an unrecorded conversation with Rienhardt's attorney, Eric Larsen. Before sentencing, Rienhardt expressly instructed counsel not to present mitigation evidence and confirmed that decision after the trial court explained the significance of mitigation in a capital case.
Procedural history
Rienhardt was convicted and sentenced to death in Arizona state court. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and death sentence after reversing one aggravating-factor finding and independently reweighing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari. After three state post-conviction proceedings, Rienhardt filed a federal habeas petition in 2003. The district court denied relief, granted a limited certificate of appealability, and on remand again denied the certified claims and requests to expand the evidentiary record. The Ninth Circuit affirmed.