Summary
The Ninth Circuit, on remand from the United States Supreme Court, affirmed the denial of David Martinez Ramirez’s federal habeas corpus petition challenging his Arizona convictions and death sentences. The court held that properly submitted evidence from a state-court Atkins proceeding could be considered when evaluating whether procedural default should be excused under Martinez v. Ryan, but concluded that Ramirez’s ineffective-assistance claim was not substantial because he could not establish sufficient prejudice under Strickland. Judge Berzon partially dissented regarding Ramirez’s Atkins-related claim.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- What evidence from the state-court record may a federal habeas court consider when deciding whether procedural default should be excused under Martinez v. Ryan?
- Whether Ramirez established cause to excuse the procedural default of his ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim under Martinez.
- Whether Ramirez established prejudice under Martinez by showing that his underlying ineffective-assistance claim was substantial and had some merit under Strickland v. Washington.
- Whether the court should reach Ramirez's four uncertified issues, including his Atkins claim.
Holdings
- When evaluating whether procedural default should be excused under Martinez, a federal habeas court may consider evidence submitted to the state court in accordance with state procedural rules, regardless of when the evidence was submitted or the purpose for which it was submitted. Thus, the properly developed and considered record from Ramirez's Atkins proceeding could be considered in evaluating his procedurally defaulted ineffective-assistance claim.
- Ramirez established cause to excuse the procedural default of his ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim because Arizona required such claims to be raised in collateral proceedings and counsel in his initial state collateral proceeding was constitutionally ineffective.
- Ramirez failed to establish prejudice under Martinez because, although sentencing counsel's performance was deficient, the underlying ineffective-assistance claim was not substantial: the omitted mitigation evidence did not create a substantial likelihood of a different sentencing outcome in light of the aggravating circumstances.
- The court declined to reach Ramirez's four uncertified issues, including whether his Atkins claim was constitutionally viable and related back to his timely federal habeas petition.
Key quotations
“We hold that when evaluating whether the procedural default of a particular claim should be excused under Martinez, a federal habeas court may consider evidence that was submitted to the state court in accordance with state procedural rules, regardless of the timing of or purpose for submission.” (6)
“Under Martinez, a “substantial” IAC claim is one that has “some merit” under the standards of Strickland v. Washington.” (14)
“Sentencing counsel abdicated her responsibility to (1) bring pertinent facts to the attention of the mental health expert examining Ramirez, and (2) adequately investigate compelling mitigation evidence.” (19)
Factual background
Ramirez was convicted of murdering his girlfriend and her fifteen-year-old daughter in 1989 and received two death sentences. At sentencing, counsel presented limited mitigation concerning Ramirez's childhood, education, substance abuse, psychological history, and diminished capacity, but failed to provide the mental-health expert with relevant school and family information and did not adequately investigate extensive evidence of abuse, neglect, intellectual disability, and possible brain damage. Later evidence from a state Atkins proceeding supplied additional diagnostic and social-history information, but the Ninth Circuit concluded that the new mitigation largely duplicated themes already presented, lacked a sufficient causal connection to the murders, and was outweighed by the multiple aggravating circumstances.
Procedural history
Ramirez was convicted of two murders and sentenced to death in Arizona. After multiple state post-conviction proceedings, the federal district court denied habeas relief, concluding that his ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim was procedurally defaulted and not sufficiently meritorious to excuse the default. The Ninth Circuit previously reversed in part and remanded for an evidentiary hearing, but the Supreme Court reversed under Shinn v. Ramirez and remanded for application of the limits on expanding the state-court record. On further remand, the Ninth Circuit held that certain evidence from Ramirez's procedurally proper Atkins proceeding could be considered, but affirmed the denial of habeas relief because the underlying ineffective-assistance claim was not substantial under Martinez.