Blair v. Martel
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14777
9th Cir.2011Background
- Blair seeks habeas relief arguing California Supreme Court delay in direct appeal violated due process; district court conducted competency review and treated under §4241(d) rather than Mason standard; California Supreme Court affirmed Blair's murder conviction and death sentence in 2005; Blair was granted a competency hearing and found competent by district court; Ninth Circuit previously held death-sentenced prisoners have a right to competence in federal habeas proceedings; Hayes v. Ayers held no clearly established right to speedy appeal; this case questions whether delay constitutes due process and whether relief is available under AEDPA and §1983
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competence standard and burden in habeas proceedings | Blair; Mason sets burden on petitioner to prove incompetence | Martel; district court used §4241(d) trial-like standard | District court erred by applying §4241(d); Mason standard applicable |
| Remand for competency determination | Hayes guidance suggests competency may matter | No remand needed if issue unlikely to affect outcome | No remand required; competency outcome unlikely to affect the result |
| Speedy appeal due process right and relief scope | Delay in state direct appeal violated due process; relief sought to compel speedier processing | No clearly established right to speedy appeal; relief not via habeas | No due process right to speedy appeal; §1983 appropriate for speedier processing; petition partly dismissed and partly denied on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Blair v. Woodford, 319 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2003) (competence and post-conviction review relevance in habeas)
- Hayes v. Ayers, 632 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2011) (no clearly established due-process right to a speedy appeal)
- Gates v. Schriro, 334 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. 2003) (competence right in capital habeas proceedings; procedure and burden)
- Mason ex rel. Marson v. Vasquez, 5 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 1993) (burden to prove incompetence in habeas proceedings)
- Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437 (1992) (preponderance standard for incompetence in criminal trials)
- McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849 (1994) (federal habeas role and counsel in death penalty cases)
- Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005) (§1983 for non-merits Review of speedy processing claims)
- Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S. Ct. 1289 (2011) (federal courts' jurisdiction over certain habeas-related claims; §1983 distinction)