David Fierro v. Clark Ducart
14-56356
| 9th Cir. | Sep 18, 2017Background
- David Fierro filed a pre-AEDPA § 2254 habeas petition challenging his state conviction and death sentence, appealed after district court denial.
- Fierro argued he was incompetent to stand trial based on later expert opinions and alleged drug use (Xanax, possible heroin access) while incarcerated.
- He also claimed trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate competency and for not pursuing a mental-state (insanity/limited capacity) defense.
- At trial, multiple contemporaneous medical evaluations and the trial judge’s observations found Fierro understood proceedings and could assist counsel; defense counsel did not object to competency.
- Trial counsel retained a medical expert and pursued an innocence/credibility defense consistent with Fierro’s wishes and prevailing state law (People v. Frierson).
- Jury found Fierro shot and killed the victim; the Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and applied preponderance standard for relief (pre-AEDPA filing).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competency to stand trial | Fierro was incompetent during trial due to mental illness and medication/drug influence | Contemporaneous evaluations and judge’s observations show competency; no contemporaneous concerns from counsel | Denied — evidence weighed for competency; later experts given less weight |
| Counsel ineffective for not investigating competency | Counsel failed to further investigate despite signs of incompetence | Counsel retained a competent expert and reasonably relied on that expert’s opinion | Denied — counsel not deficient and no prejudice because record shows competency |
| Counsel ineffective for not pursuing mental-state defense | Counsel should have investigated/presented insanity/mental-state defense | Counsel reasonably pursued an innocence/credibility defense under state law and client preference | Denied — strategic choice was reasonable; no reasonable probability of a different outcome |
| Certificate expansion for uncertified claims | Fierro sought expansion of COA on additional claims | Respondent argued district court was correct; no substantial showing of debatable issues | Denied — no reasonable jurist would debate the district court’s resolution |
Key Cases Cited
- Deere v. Cullen, 718 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2013) (standard for pre-AEDPA habeas review and competency analysis)
- Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) (competency-to-stand-trial standard requires understanding proceedings and ability to assist counsel)
- Williams v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 567 (9th Cir. 2004) (competency-related standards and review of contemporaneous indicators)
- Hendricks v. Calderon, 70 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 1995) (counsel may rely on competent expert retained to evaluate defendant)
- Harris v. Vasquez, 949 F.2d 1497 (9th Cir. 1990) (standards for counsel’s reliance on experts)
- Earp v. Cullen, 623 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. 2010) (expert deficiencies not automatically imputed to counsel)
- Boyde v. Brown, 404 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2005) (prejudice inquiry when competency is at issue)
- Bean v. Calderon, 163 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 1998) (counsel’s duty to investigate may end when client-directed strategy conflicts)
- People v. Frierson, 39 Cal.3d 803 (Cal. 1985) (state law governing mental-state defenses at time of trial)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective assistance of counsel standard requiring deficient performance and prejudice)
- Mickey v. Ayers, 606 F.3d 1223 (9th Cir. 2010) (contextual hostility toward mental-state defenses affects reasonableness of strategy)
- Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759 (2017) (standard for certificate of appealability and what merits encouragement to proceed)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (COA standards for reasonable jurist disagreement)
AFFIRMED.