10 F.4th 1203
11th Cir.2021Background:
- In January 2002 Damion Hayes attacked and severely stabbed an unprovoked neighbor; physical evidence (victim ID, blood on burned clothing, admissions to a cousin) strongly tied him to the crime.
- Hayes was found incompetent in 2003, treated at a state mental facility, then later found competent to stand trial; multiple clinicians evaluated him but no expert offered an opinion on his sanity at the time of the offense.
- Trial counsel filed a notice of intent to assert an insanity defense but withdrew that defense at the start of trial, stating on the record that Hayes wanted to proceed with a straight not-guilty plea; counsel did not present witnesses at trial and pursued a misidentification defense instead.
- Hayes was convicted of attempted first-degree murder with a deadly weapon and armed trespassing and sentenced to life; post-conviction proceedings raised an ineffective-assistance claim based on counsel's withdrawal of the insanity defense.
- The federal district court granted habeas relief concluding counsel was ineffective and Hayes suffered prejudice because the insanity defense was likely his only viable defense; the Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding the district court applied the wrong prejudice test and that Hayes failed to show a reasonable probability his insanity defense would have succeeded.
Issues:
| Issue | Hayes' Argument | State/Secretary's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel's withdrawal of the insanity defense rendered assistance ineffective (prejudice prong) | Withdrawal was not knowing or informed; counsel never obtained sanity-at-time expert; abandoning the only viable defense undermined confidence in the outcome | Even if morally fraught, Hayes must show a reasonable probability the insanity defense would have succeeded; state courts reasonably found counsel acted tactically and Hayes was competent | Court rejected district court's automatic-prejudice approach and held Hayes failed to show a reasonable probability that an insanity defense would have succeeded; no habeas relief |
| Proper standard of prejudice under Strickland/AEDPA (and effect of Mirzayance) | Abandonment of the sole viable defense is presumptively prejudicial | Mirzayance requires a showing of a reasonable probability of a different result; AEDPA deference principles apply where applicable | Court applied Mirzayance: petitioner must demonstrate a reasonable probability he would have prevailed on insanity; Hayes did not meet that burden |
| Application of AEDPA deference to state-court factual findings (relation of §2254(d)(2) and §2254(e)(1)) | District court found state post-conviction court’s credibility finding unreasonable and declined AEDPA deference | Appellate concurrence: district court failed to apply §2254(e)(1) presumption of correctness and conflated (d)(2) and (e)(1); state findings should stand absent clear and convincing rebuttal | Majority reversed on merits; concurrence explained the district court erred in disregarding the presumption of correctness and misapplying the (d)(2)/(e)(1) framework |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test: performance and prejudice)
- Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111 (2009) (even if a defense is the only plausible one, petitioner must show a reasonable probability of success on that defense)
- Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005) (when state courts do not reach prejudice, federal courts may review prejudice de novo)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (clarifies Strickland prejudice standard and AEDPA deference principles)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (explains that §2254(d)(2) and §2254(e)(1) are independent requirements)
- Wilson v. Sellers, 138 S. Ct. 1188 (2018) (directs federal courts to "look through" unexplained state appellate affirmances to the last reasoned state-court decision)
- Nejad v. Att’y Gen., State of Ga., 830 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir. 2016) (federal courts may not reject state-court credibility findings in absence of clear-and-convincing evidence to the contrary)