Bobby v. Van Hook

• Decision Date: 09 November 2009
• Docket Number: No. 09-144.,09-144.
• Citation: 175 L. Ed. 2d 255,130 S.Ct. 13
• Parties: David BOBBY, Warden, Petitioner, v. Robert J. VAN HOOK
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

130 S.Ct. 13

558 US __

175 L. Ed. 2d 255

David BOBBY, Warden, Petitioner, v. Robert J. VAN HOOK

No. 09-144.

Supreme Court of United States.

November 9, 2009.

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 (...