Andriano v. Shinn
| Decision Date | 19 January 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. CV-16-01159-PHX-SRB,CV-16-01159-PHX-SRB |
| Parties | Wendi Elizabeth Andriano, Petitioner, v. David Shinn, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Arizona |
DEATH PENALTY CASE
Before the Court is the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Wendi Elizabeth Andriano, an Arizona death row inmate. (Doc. 17.) Respondents filed an answer to the petition and Andriano filed a reply. (Docs. 22, 42.) For the reasons set forth below, and based on the Court's review of the briefings and the entire record herein, the petition is denied.
In 2004, Andriano was convicted of one count of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for killing her husband. The following facts are taken from the opinion of the Arizona Supreme Court affirming the conviction and sentence, State v. Andriano, 215 Ariz. 497, 161 P.3d 540 (2007), abrogated by State v. Ferrero, 229 Ariz. 239, 274 P.3d 509 (2012), and from the Court's review of the record.
At about 2:15 a.m. on October 8, 2000, Andriano called Chris, a coworker who lived at the same apartment complex, and asked her to watch the Andrianos' children while she took her husband, Joe, to the doctor. Joe was terminally ill with metastatic adenoid cystic carcinoma. Andriano met Chris outside the apartment and told her Joe was dying. She stated she hadn't yet called 911.
Upon entering the apartment, Chris found Joe lying on the living room floor in the fetal position. He had vomited, appeared weak, and was having difficulty breathing. While Andriano was in another room calling 911, Joe told Chris that he needed help and had "for a long time." He asked why it was taking 45 minutes for the paramedics to show up.
Chris heard the paramedics arrive and went outside to direct them to the apartment. As the paramedics were unloading their equipment, Andriano exited the apartment screaming at them to leave. She returned inside and slammed the door. Chris and the paramedics knocked on the door but no one answered. Instead of coming out the front door, which opened onto the living room, Andriano went out through the back door, climbed over the patio wall, and walked around the apartment building to the front door. She had changed her shirt and her hair was wet. She told the paramedics that Joe was dying of cancer and had a do-not-resuscitate order. The paramedics left.
Andriano later called 911 again and the same paramedics responded. When they entered the apartment they found Joe lying dead on the floor in a pool of blood. He had sustained brain hemorrhaging caused by blows to the back of his head. He had also suffered a stab wound to his neck that severed his carotid artery. A broken bar stool covered in blood was found near Joe's body, along with a bloody kitchen knife and a belt.
The medical examiner determined that the brain hemorrhaging was caused by at least 23 blows to the back of his head, eight to ten of which independently could have rendered Joe unconscious. Defensive wounds on Joe's hands and wrists indicated that he was conscious for at least part of the attack. The medical examiner opined that the blows to the head were sustained before the stab wound to the neck and that Joe was still alive, although likely unconscious, when he was stabbed. The cause of death was blunt force trauma and the stab wound.
Based on the blood spatter and other evidence, a Phoenix police detective opined that Joe was lying down while he was being struck and did not get up during the attack.The detective further opined, based on the absence of arterial spurting on the belt and the knife, that those items were placed beside Joe's body after he died.
After being taken into custody, Andriano called one of her coworkers and asked her to hide certain items that were in Andriano's business office. Andriano's stepfather told a police detective on the day of the murder, "I remember [Andriano] telling me that she stabbed [Joe]."
A search of the Andrianos' storage unit revealed an open cardboard shipping box containing a 500-gram bottle of sodium azide, two Tupperware containers containing sodium azide, a plastic knife and fork, and two pairs of latex gloves. Andriano's fingerprints were on the plastic knife and the bag in which the cardboard box was shipped. In the Andrianos' apartment, police found capsules filled with sodium azide in a bottle labeled as an herbal supplement. Trace amounts of sodium azide were found in the contents of a pot and two soup bowls in the kitchen. In all, 20.8 grams of the sodium azide were unaccounted for. Trace amounts of sodium azide were found in Joe's blood and gastric contents.
Andriano had ordered the sodium azide, a poison used for pest control, over the internet from a chemical distributor. For the transaction she used a false name and shipping address and a fictitious business license.
In the months leading up to Joe's murder, Andriano had attempted to procure a life insurance policy on him. In doing so she falsely claimed that Joe did not have cancer, and asked male friends to pose as Joe for the required physical examination, offering one of the men as much as $50,000.
At trial Andriano testified that Joe, who had been contemplating suicide and decided to take his life that night, swallowed several sodium azide capsules. The poison failed to kill him, however, and he became verbally and physically abusive. He tried to strangle Andriano with a telephone cord but she was able to cut the cord with a knife. When Joe picked up the knife, she struck him with the bar stool in self-defense. Joe then threatenedto kill himself with the knife. Andriano testified that she tried to stop him and his neck was cut during the struggle.
Andriano also presented evidence that she was a victim of domestic abuse. She testified that throughout the course of their marriage Joe had been emotionally, physically, and sexually abusive. An expert testified about the psychological effects of domestic abuse.
The jury found Andriano guilty of first-degree murder. At sentencing, the jury found one aggravating factor: that the murder had been committed in an "especially cruel manner" under A.R.S. § 13-751(F)(6).1 The jury then found that the evidence presented in mitigation was not sufficiently substantial to call for leniency and returned a verdict of death. The conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. Andriano, 215 Ariz. 497, 161 P.3d 540.
Andriano sought post-conviction relief ("PCR") in state court, filing a petition raising claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. (PCR pet., Doc. 28-1, Ex. OOOOO.) The court dismissed the majority of Andriano's claims as precluded or not colorable, but granted a hearing on her penalty-phase ineffectiveness and conflict-of-interest claims.2 (ME 10/30/12.) After the hearing, the court dismissed both claims. (ME 11/1/14.) The Arizona Supreme Court denied review without comment.
Andriano filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court on March 6, 2017. (Doc. 17.) She subsequently filed a motion for evidentiary development, which the Court denied. (Doc. 68.) In doing so the Court denied Claims 6, 10, 11, 15, 18, 19A, 21C, 21D, and 21E as procedurally defaulted and barred from federal review, and Claims 4, 17, 22, 31, 35, and 36 as meritless. (Id.)
Federal habeas claims are analyzed under the framework of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA").3 Pursuant to the AEDPA, a petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief on any claim adjudicated on the merits in state court unless the state court's adjudication (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in state court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
A state court decision is "contrary to" clearly established federal law under § 2254(d)(1) if the decision applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in Supreme Court precedent, thereby reaching a conclusion opposite to that reached by the Supreme Court on a matter of law, or if it confronts a set of facts that is materially indistinguishable from a decision of the Supreme Court but reaches a different result. Williams v. Taylor (Terry Williams), 529 U.S. 362, 405-06 (2000); see Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8 (2002) (per curiam). Under the "unreasonable application" prong of § 2254(d)(1), a federal habeas court may grant relief where a state court "identifies the correct governing legal rule from Court's cases but unreasonably applies it to the facts of the particular . . . case" or "unreasonably extends a legal principle from [Supreme Court] precedent to a new context where it should not apply or unreasonably refuses to extend that principle to a new context where it should apply." Williams (Terry), 529 U.S. at 407.
The Supreme Court has emphasized that under § 2254(d)(1) "an unreasonable application of federal law is different from an incorrect application of federal law." Id. (O'Connor, J., concurring) (emphasis in original); see Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 694(2002). Under § 2254(d), "[a] state court's determination that a claim lacks merit precludes federal habeas relief so long as 'fairminded jurists could disagree' on the correctness of the state court's decision." Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 101 (2011) (quoting Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664 (2004)). The burden is on the petitioner to show "there was no reasonable basis for the state court to deny relief." Id. at 98.
Under § 2254(d)(2), habeas relief is available if the state court decision was based upon an unreasonable determination of the facts. Miller-El v. Dretke (Miller-El II), 545 U.S. 231, 240 (2005). "[A] decision adjudicated on the merits in a state court and based on a factual determination will not be overturned on factual grounds unless objectively...
To continue reading
Request your trial