Menzies v. Powell
Docket Number | 19-4042 |
Decision Date | 07 November 2022 |
Citation | 52 F.4th 1178 |
Parties | Ralph Leroy MENZIES, Petitioner - Appellant, v. Robert POWELL, Warden of the Utah State Penitentiary, Respondent - Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Lindsey Layer, Assistant Federal Public Defender (Jon M. Sands, Federal Public Defender, and Eric Zuckerman, Assistant Federal Public Defender, with her on the briefs), Phoenix, Arizona, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Erin Riley, Assistant Solicitor General (Sean D. Reyes, Utah Attorney General, Andrew F. Peterson and Aaron G. Murphy, Assistant Solicitors General, with her on the briefs), Salt Lake City Utah, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before HARTZ, BACHARACH, and EID, Circuit Judges.
1. Mr. Menzies's Murder Conviction and Sentence....1193
2. Appellate and Post-Conviction Proceedings....1194
3. Federal Habeas Proceedings....1195
4. Standard of Review....1195
5. The Utah Supreme Court reasonably rejected Mr. Menzies's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel during the guilt phase....1195
5.1 Standard for Obtaining Relief Based on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel....1996
5.2 Identification Testimony at Trial....1996
5.2.2 Identification of Objects....1997
5.3 The Utah Supreme Court's Disposition of Claims Involving Identification Testimony....1997 5.4 Mr. Menzies's Challenges to the Utah Supreme Court's Decision....1997
5.4.1 The Photo Arrays....1998
5.4.1.1.1 Statement that a Suspect was Already in Custody....1998
5.4.1.1.2 Second Viewing of the Photo Array....1998
5.4.1.1.3 Lack of an Admonition....1999
5.4.1.1.4 False Dichotomy....1999
5.4.3 The Identification of Objects....1201
5.4.4 Failure to Investigate the Account of Mr. Larrabee and His Girlfriend....1203
5.5 Failure to Challenge the Testimony of Walter Britton....1204
5.5.1 The Utah Supreme Court's Disposition of the Claim....1204
5.5.2 Mental-Health Evidence....1205
5.5.3 Benefits from Testimony....1206
5.5.4 Mr. Benitez's Statement....1207
5.5.4.1 Procedural Default....1207
6. The trial court's instruction on reasonable doubt constituted a reasonable application of Supreme Court precedent and conformed to the Constitution....1211
6.1 Reasonableness of the Utah Supreme Court's Decision....1211
6.1.1 Substantial Doubt....1211
6.1.2 Willingness to Act....1213
6.2 Absence of a Constitutional Violation....1214
7. The Utah Supreme Court reasonably rejected Mr. Menzies's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during sentencing....1214
7.1 The Evidence Presented in State Court....1214
7.2 Mr. Menzies's Theories of Ineffectiveness....1215
7.3 The Attorney's Duty to Investigate....1215
7.4 Bar to Considering Evidence Presented in Federal Court....1215
7.5 Delayed Investigation of the Mitigating Evidence....1216
7.6 Failure to Investigate Other Mitigating Evidence....1217
7.7 Failure to Present Evidence of Organic Brain Damage....1218
8. The Utah Supreme Court acted reasonably in rejecting Mr. Menzies's challenges to the admissibility of documents from his prison file....1219
8.1 The Utah Supreme Court reasonably concluded that introduction of mental-health evaluations had not violated the Fifth Amendment....1219
8.2 Introduction of Mr. Menzies's prison file did not deny the right to confrontation, constitute a denial of due process, or entail cruel and unusual punishment....1222
8.2.1 Confrontation Clause....1222
8.2.3 Cruel and Unusual Punishment....1223
9. The Utah Supreme Court reasonably concluded that the trial court had not violated the Constitution by relying on uncharged aggravating circumstances....1223
9.1 Utah law allowed the prosecution to allege additional aggravating circumstances at sentencing....1224 9.2 Mr. Menzies obtained adequate notice of the aggravating circumstances bearing on the sentence....1225
9.3 The prosecution did not need to prove each aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt....1227
9.4 The Utah Supreme Court didn't violate any constitutional rights by omitting discussion of two aggravating circumstances from the analysis of harmless error....1228
10. The Utah Supreme Court reasonably rejected Mr. Menzies's challenge to the constitutionality of the aggravating circumstances....1228
10.1 Aggravating Circumstances for Murders that are Heinous, Atrocious, and Cruel....1228
10.1.2 Consideration of Mitigating Factors....1230
10.2 Sufficiency of the Evidence on Aggravating Circumstances....1230
10.3 Reasonable jurists could reject Mr. Menzies's claim involving reliance on duplicative aggravating circumstances....1231
11. In rejecting Mr. Menzies's challenges involving errors in the trial transcript, the Utah Supreme Court reasonably applied Supreme Court precedent and found the pertinent facts....1231
11.1 The Utah courts provided the parties with an opportunity to correct errors in the trial transcript....1232
11.2 The trial court found no constitutional violation, and the record contained two versions of the transcript....1232
11.3 The Utah Supreme Court upheld the trial court's ruling that the transcript was accurate enough for a meaningful appeal....1232
11.4 The Utah Supreme Court's decision was not based on an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law....1233
11.5 The Utah Supreme Court did not base its decision on an unreasonable determination of fact....1234
11.5.1 Reliance on the Docketing Statement....1234
11.5.2 Failure to Provide a Sufficient Transcript of Voir Dire....1235
11.5.3 Omission of a Conference Outside the Jury's Presence....1237
11.5.4 Additions by the Note Reader....1238
11.5.5 Errors Involving Numbers....1240
12. A certificate of appealability is unwarranted on the admissibility at trial of Mr. Britton's testimony from the preliminary hearing....1241
12.1 Standard for a Certificate of Appealability....1242
12.2 Mr. Britton's Unavailability....1242
Mr. Ralph Leroy Menzies was convicted of first-degree murder in Utah state court and sentenced to death. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the denial of his motion for a new trial, State v. Menzies , 845 P.2d 220, 242 (Utah 1992), and then affirmed his conviction and death sentence, State v. Menzies , 889 P.2d 393, 396 (Utah 1994). Mr. Menzies sought postconviction relief, but the state courts rejected his claims. Menzies v. Galetka , 150 P.3d 480, 489 (Utah 2006) ; Menzies v. State , 344 P.3d 581, 588 (Utah 2014).
The state court decisions led Mr. Menzies to seek habeas relief in federal court. The federal district court denied relief, prompting Mr. Menzies to appeal. We affirm.
In this appeal, we address eight issues:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Moore v. White
... ... Petitioner “bear[s] the burden of showing a right to ... habeas relief based on a preponderance of the ... evidence.” Menzies v. Powell , 52 F.4th 1178, ... 1210 (10th Cir. 2022), petition for cert. filed , No ... 22-7482 (U.S. May 8, 2023). That is, Petitioner ... ...
-
Stenberg v. Langford
... ... “misapprehension goes to a material factual issue that ... is central to the petitioner's claim.” Menzies ... v. Powell , 52 F.4th 1178, 1195 (10th Cir. 2022) ... (quotations and alterations omitted) ... Frederick , 2023 WL 5195678, at ... ...