Bobby v. Van Hook

Decision Date09 November 2009
Docket NumberNo. 09-144.,09-144.
Citation175 L. Ed. 2d 255,130 S.Ct. 13
PartiesDavid BOBBY, Warden, Petitioner, v. Robert J. VAN HOOK
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.

PER CURIAM.

The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted habeas relief to Robert Van Hook on the ground that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel during the sentencing phase of his capital trial. Because we think it clear that Van Hook's attorneys met the constitutional minimum of competence under the correct standard, we grant the petition and reverse.

I

On February 18, 1985, Van Hook went to a Cincinnati bar that catered to homosexual men, hoping to find someone to rob. He approached David Self, and after the two spent several hours drinking together they left for Self's apartment. There Van Hook "lured Self into a vulnerable position" and attacked him, first strangling him until he was unconscious, then killing him with a kitchen knife and mutilating his body. State v. Van Hook, 39 Ohio St.3d 256, 256-257, 530 N.E.2d 883, 884 (1988). Before fleeing with Self's valuables, Van Hook attempted to cover his tracks, stuffing the knife and other items into the body and smearing fingerprints he had left behind. Six weeks later, police found him in Florida, where he confessed.

Van Hook was indicted in Ohio for aggravated murder, with one capital specification, and aggravated robbery. He waived his right to a jury trial, and a three-judge panel found him guilty of both charges and the capital specification. At the sentencing hearing, the defense called eight mitigation witnesses, and Van Hook himself gave an unsworn statement. After weighing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the trial court imposed the death penalty. The Ohio courts affirmed on direct appeal, id., at 265, 530 N.E.2d, at 892; State v. Van Hook, No. C-85-0565, 1987 WL 11202 (Ohio App., May 13, 1987) (per curiam), and we denied certiorari, Van Hook v. Ohio, 489 U.S. 1100, 109 S.Ct. 1578, 103 L.Ed.2d 944 (1989). Van Hook also sought state postconviction relief, which the Ohio courts denied. State v. Van Hook, No. C-910505, 1992 WL 308350 (Ohio App., Oct. 21, 1992) (per curiam), appeal denied, 66 Ohio St.3d 1440, 608 N.E.2d 1085, rehearing denied, 66 Ohio St.3d 1470, 611 N.E.2d 328 (1993); State v. Van Hook, 70 Ohio St.3d 1216, 639 N.E.2d 1199 (1994).

Van Hook filed this federal habeas petition in 1995. The District Court denied relief on all 17 of his claims. Van Hook v. Anderson, No. C-1-94-269 (S.D.Ohio, Aug. 7, 2003), App. to Pet. for Cert. 123a, 163a. A panel of the Sixth Circuit reversed, concluding that Van Hook's confession was unconstitutionally obtained under Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981). See Van Hook v. Anderson, 444 F.3d 830, 832 (2006). The en banc Sixth Circuit vacated that ruling, holding the confession was proper, and it remanded the case to the panel to consider Van Hook's other claims. See Van Hook v. Anderson, 488 F.3d 411, 428 (2007). Van Hook petitioned for a writ of certiorari, which we denied. Van Hook v. Hudson, 552 U.S. 1023, 128 S.Ct. 614, 169 L.Ed.2d 396 (...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Rowland v. Chappell, C 94–3037 WHA.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • October 2, 2012
    ...below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms. Ibid.; see also Bobby v. Van Hook, 558 U.S. 4, 130 S.Ct. 13, 18, 175 L.Ed.2d 255 (2009) ( per curiam ) (noting that guidelines, such as those promulgated by the American Bar Association, purporting to establi......
  • Wilson v. Superintendent, Case No. 3:11-CV-82 JD
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana
    • May 14, 2012
    ...that does not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness in light of prevailing professional norms." Bobby v. Van Hook, —U.S.—, 130 S. Ct. 13, 16 (2009). To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance, the petitioner must show that counsel's performance was deficient and that the d......
2 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 2 - 2015 Contents
    • August 17, 2015
    ...20:26 Blumenstetter v. State, 135 S.W.3d 234 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2004, no pet .), §§16:64, 17:23.2.4 Bobby v. Van Hook, 558 U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 13, 175 L.Ed.2d 255 (2009), §21:74 Bodin v. State, 807 S.W.2d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), §§13:24.2, 13:24.3, 13:24.5, 15:95.2 Boget v. State, 74 S......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 2 - 2014 Contents
    • August 17, 2014
    ...20:26 Blumenstetter v. State, 135 S.W.3d 234 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2004, no pet .), §§16:64, 17:23.2.4 Bobby v. Van Hook, 558 U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 13, 175 L.Ed.2d 255 (2009), §21:74 Bodin v. State, 807 S.W.2d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), §§13:24.2, 13:24.3, 13:24.5, 15:95.2 Boget v. State, 74 S......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT