Lance Ian Osband v. Jason Schultz

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California reviewed objections to a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations in Lance Ian Osband’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas proceeding. The court adopted the findings and recommendations in part, concluding that the state court’s denial of relief was not entitled to deference as to subclaim C of claim XX, while dismissing claims I, V, IX, and specified subclaims of claim XX. The court granted a certificate of appealability on those claims and directed the parties to submit a joint status report regarding further proceedings.

Holdings

1. The state court reasonably could have denied relief because reasonable and diligent counsel could have concluded that presenting evidence implicating Richard Thomas and W.J. Williams would be unproductive and potentially harmful; therefore, the state-court decision was entitled to deference under § 2254(d), without reaching the adequacy of counsel's investigation.
2. The state court reasonably could have concluded that Osband was competent to stand trial, so its denial of relief was entitled to deference under § 2254(d).
3. The state court reasonably could have concluded that Osband was competent to testify, and Osband failed to connect particular testimony or decisions to a specific deficient act or omission by counsel.
4. The state-court decision rejecting subclaim C was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law under § 2254(d)(1), because Osband made the required prima facie showing concerning substantial mitigating evidence that could have affected the death sentence.
5. The remaining subclaims were not abandoned or waived, but Osband failed to show that the state-court decisions were contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law under § 2254(d).
6. Osband was entitled to a certificate of appealability for claims I, V, IX, and claim XX subclaims A, B, D, E, F, and G because reasonable jurists could debate whether the court's conclusions were wrong.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the state court reasonably rejected Osband's ineffective-assistance claim based on counsel's failure to investigate or present a third-party-culpability defense.
2. Whether the state court reasonably determined that Osband was competent to stand trial.
3. Whether the state court reasonably determined that Osband was competent to testify and whether counsel's alleged errors caused attributable prejudice.
4. Whether the state court unreasonably rejected the ineffective-assistance claim based on counsel's failure to investigate and present mitigating evidence during the penalty phase.
5. Whether the remaining subclaims of claim XX were abandoned or otherwise failed to satisfy the deferential standard under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
6. Whether Osband was entitled to a certificate of appealability on the dismissed claims.

Disposition

other