Summary
The en banc United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of David Scott Detrich’s federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court held that Detrich procedurally defaulted most of his ineffective-assistance claims, that Martinez v. Ryan did not excuse those defaults, and that the remaining claims did not satisfy the limitations of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. The court also declined to grant a certificate of appealability on Detrich’s causal-nexus claim concerning mitigation evidence.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Detrich fairly presented his ineffective-assistance claim concerning counsel's failure to present Shell's live testimony to the Arizona Supreme Court when he included the claim only in the appendix to his petition for review.
- What circumstances are sufficient to fairly present a claim to a state supreme court for federal habeas exhaustion purposes.
- Whether most of Detrich's guilt-phase ineffective-assistance claims were procedurally defaulted and, if so, whether Martinez v. Ryan supplied cause and actual prejudice to excuse the defaults.
- Whether Detrich's claim that counsel failed to retain a forensic expert to challenge testimony about Souter's gurgling was fairly presented and whether the state court's rejection of that claim was unreasonable under Strickland and AEDPA.
- Whether the Arizona Supreme Court unreasonably applied Strickland or unreasonably determined the facts in rejecting Detrich's sentencing-phase ineffective-assistance claims.
- Whether Detrich was entitled to a certificate of appealability on his claim that the Arizona Supreme Court applied an unconstitutional causal-nexus test to mitigation evidence.
Holdings
- A claim is fairly presented to a state supreme court when the circumstances as a whole fairly apprise that court that the petitioner seeks some substantive or procedural relief from that court with respect to the claim. Including the underlying petition in an appendix, without more, is insufficient.
- Detrich procedurally defaulted most of his guilt-phase ineffective-assistance claims because he did not fairly present them to the Arizona Supreme Court in a complete round of state review.
- Detrich did not establish cause and prejudice under Martinez to excuse the procedural defaults of his guilt-phase ineffective-assistance claims.
- The claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present Shell's live testimony was procedurally defaulted and was not subject to Martinez.
- The claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to retain a forensic expert to challenge testimony that Souter consciously gurgled was fairly presented to the Arizona Supreme Court and was not procedurally defaulted, but habeas relief was barred because the state court reasonably found no Strickland prejudice.
- The Arizona Supreme Court did not unreasonably apply Strickland or unreasonably determine the facts in rejecting Detrich's claims that counsel failed to present additional mitigation evidence or challenge the aggravating evidence supporting the death sentence.
- The court declined to grant a certificate of appealability on Detrich's claim that the Arizona Supreme Court applied an unconstitutional causal-nexus test to mitigation evidence.
Key quotations
“We hold that a claim is fairly presented to the state supreme court when the circumstances as a whole fairly apprise the state supreme court that the petitioner seeks from the supreme court some form of substantive or procedural relief with respect to that claim.” (51)
“Including the underlying petition in the appendix, without more, is insufficient.” (51)
“Because the claim is defaulted and not subject to Martinez, the district court properly declined to consider it.” (56)
Factual background
Detrich was convicted of murdering Elizabeth Souter and kidnapping her after a 1994 retrial. The prosecution presented evidence that Detrich abducted Souter at knifepoint, attacked her in a vehicle, inflicted more than forty knife wounds, and left her body in the desert. At sentencing, the trial court found the Arizona especially-cruel and especially-heinous-or-depraved aggravating circumstance and imposed the death penalty, while also considering evidence of Detrich's abusive childhood, substance abuse, and mental health. Detrich later alleged that trial counsel was ineffective during both the guilt and penalty phases and that the Arizona courts applied an unconstitutional causal-nexus requirement to mitigation evidence.
Procedural history
Detrich was convicted and sentenced to death in Arizona after a 1994 retrial for murder and kidnapping. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed, and Detrich pursued state postconviction relief in two proceedings. The federal district court denied habeas relief, dismissed several claims as procedurally defaulted, and granted limited certificates of appealability. A Ninth Circuit panel initially granted relief on a sentencing ineffective-assistance claim, but the Supreme Court vacated that decision in light of Cullen v. Pinholster. After Martinez v. Ryan, the Ninth Circuit remanded for consideration of cause and prejudice, later expanded the remand to address the causal-nexus sentencing claim, and the district court again denied relief. The en banc Ninth Circuit affirmed.