Jones v. Ryan
| Decision Date | 07 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | 18-99005 |
| Parties | DANNY LEE JONES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. CHARLES L. RYAN, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Argued and Submitted February 16, 2021 San Francisco, California
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona D.C. No. 2:01-cv-00384-SRB Hon. Susan R. Bolton District Judge, Presiding
Amanda Bass (argued) and Leticia Marquez, Assistant Federal Public Defenders; Jon M. Sands, Federal Public Defender, District of Arizona; Federal Public Defenders' Office, Tucson Arizona; Jean-Claude Andre, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP Santa Monica, California; Barbara A. Smith and J. Bennett Clark, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, St. Louis, Missouri Kristin Howard Corradini, Bryan Cave Leighton Paiser LLP, Chicago, Illinois; for Petitioner-Appellant.
Jeffrey L. Sparks (argued), Assistant Attorney General, Capital Litigation Section; Lacey Stover Gard, Chief Counsel; Mark Brnovich, Attorney General of Arizona; Office of the Attorney General, Phoenix, Arizona; for Respondent-Appellee.
BEFORE: S.R. THOMAS, and HAWKINS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges
SUMMARY[*]
Habeas Corpus / Death Penalty
ORDER AND AMENDED OPINIONThe panel filed an amended opinion, denied a petition for panel rehearing, and denied on behalf of the court a petition for rehearing en banc, in a case in which the panel, applying the appropriate standards pursuant to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), reversed the district court's judgment denying Danny Lee Jones's habeas corpus petition challenging his Arizona death sentence, and remanded to the district court with instructions to issue the writ.
In Claim 1, Jones asserted that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective by failing to request a mental health expert in advance of the sentencing hearing. The panel held that the state court record demonstrates that trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective by failing to secure a defense mental health expert, and that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), the Arizona Supreme Court's contrary conclusion was an unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and its progeny. Holding that the state post-conviction review (PCR) court's decision was also based on an unreasonable determination of the facts under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2) the panel agreed with Jones that (1) the PCR court employed a defective fact-finding process when it denied PCR counsel's funding request for a defense neuropsychological expert, effectively preventing the development of Claim 1; and (2) the state court's failure to hold a hearing on Claim 1 resulted in an unreasonable determination of the facts. The panel wrote that if the state court had reached the question of Strickland prejudice, the panel would be required to afford the decision deference under AEDPA, but because the PCR court did not reach the issue of prejudice, the panel reviewed the issue de novo. Noting that Jones was diligent in attempting to develop the factual basis for the claim in state court, the panel wrote that the district court did not err in its expansion of the record, and the panel considered the evidence developed in the district court in conducting its de novo review. The panel wrote that on de novo review, it must weigh the aggravating factors against the mitigation evidence, as developed in the state court record that was available, but not presented. The panel also considered the mitigation evidence that was presented. Reweighing the evidence in aggravation against the totality of the available mitigating evidence, the panel concluded that there is at least a reasonable probability that development and presentation of mental health expert testimony would have overcome the aggravating factors and changed the result of the sentencing proceeding. The panel therefore concluded on de novo review that Jones demonstrated Strickland prejudice, and, accordingly, reversed the district court's denial of relief on Claim 1.
In Claim 2, Jones asserted that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective by failing to seek neurological or neuropsychological testing prior to sentencing. The panel wrote that counsel's failure to promptly seek neuropsychological testing ran contrary to his obligation to pursue reasonable investigations under Strickland, and in particular, his obligation to investigate and present evidence of a defendant's mental defect. The panel therefore concluded that the PCR court's decision that defense counsel's performance did not fall below an objectively reasonable standard was an unreasonable application of Strickland, and that Jones satisfied § 2254(d)(1). The panel also held that the state PCR court's decision was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts, satisfying § 2254(d)(2), where the PCR judge made factual findings regarding the necessity of neuropsychological testing, not on the basis of evidence presented by Jones, but on the basis of his own personal conduct, untested memory, and understanding of events-and by plainly misapprehending the record, which included a forensic psychiatrist's testimony, six years earlier, strongly suggesting that neuropsychological testing was essential. Because the PCR court did not reach the issue of prejudice, the panel reviewed the issue de novo. Noting that Jones was diligent in attempting to develop the factual basis for the claim in state court, the panel wrote that the district court did not err in its expansion of the record, and the panel considered the evidence developed in the district court in conducting its de novo review. The panel concluded that Jones demonstrated Strickland prejudice because there is a reasonable probability that had such testing been conducted, and had the results been presented at sentencing, Jones would not have received a death sentence. The panel wrote that, in combination, the testing results and the presentation of contributing factors would have dramatically affected any sentencing judge's perception of Jones's culpability for his crimes, even despite the existence of aggravating factors.
Because the panel determined that Jones is entitled to relief and resentencing on the basis of Claims 1 and 2, the panel did not reach whether new evidence presented at the federal evidentiary hearing fundamentally altered these claims such that they were unexhausted, procedurally defaulted, and excused in light of Dickens v. Ryan, 740 F.3d 1302 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc), and Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012).
The panel likewise did not reach the merits of any of Jones's other claims.
Judge Bennett, joined by Judges Callahan, R. Nelson, Bade, Collins, Lee, Bress, Bumatay, and VanDyke, dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc. He wrote that the panel improperly and materially lowered Strickland's highly demanding standard and failed to afford the required deference to the district court's findings- essentially finding that no such deference was due. He wrote that the court should have taken this case en banc (1) to secure and maintain uniformity in our case law; (2) because this case involves issues of exceptional importance; and (3) so that the Supreme Court, which has already vacated this court's judgment once in this case, does not grant certiorari a second time and reverse.
Judge Ikuta, joined by Judges Callahan and VanDyke, dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc. She agreed with Judge Bennett that even if the panel had been correct in conducting a de novo review of the state court's decision, it erred in failing to defer to the district court's factual findings. In her view, however, the panel had no business conducting such a de novo review in the first place. She wrote that in reaching the issue of prejudice de novo, the panel mischaracterized the state court opinion and disregarded the admonitions of the Supreme Court to give such opinions proper deference.
The opinion filed June 28, 2021, Jones v. Ryan, 1 F.4th 1179 (9th Circ. 2021) is amended and superseded by the opinion filed concurrently with this order.
The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. A judge of this Court requested a vote on the petition for rehearing en banc. A majority of the non-recused active judges did not vote to rehear the case en banc. Fed. R. App 35. The petition for panel rehearing and for rehearing en banc is DENIED. No further petitions for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc will be entertained.
AMENDED OPINIONDanny Lee Jones, an Arizona inmate on death row, appeals the district court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus on remand from this court and the Supreme Court of the United States. Applying the appropriate standards pursuant to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), we conclude that Jones was denied the effective assistance of counsel at sentencing. We reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I[1]
On March 26, 1992, in Bullhead City, Arizona, Jones and his friend Robert Weaver spent the day drinking and using crystal methamphetamine in Weaver's garage. At some point, a fight broke out, and evidence at trial indicated that Jones hit Weaver over the head multiple times with a wooden baseball bat, killing him. Jones then went inside the house where he encountered Weaver's grandmother, Katherine Gumina. Jones struck Gumina in the head with the bat and knocked her to the ground. Jones then made his way to a bedroom where he found Tisha Weaver, Weaver's seven-year-old daughter, hiding under the bed. Evidence showed that Jones hit Tisha in the head with the bat, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial