Douglas Stankewitz v. Robert Wong, 698 F.3d 1163

Stankewitz was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1978 murder of Theresa Greybeal in California.
On appeal, the panel held that Goodwin’s penalty-phase performance could be ineffective if mitigating evidence was available and not presented, remanding for an evidentiary hearing.
On remand, the district court allowed extensive documentary evidence but the parties later briefed the merits based on the expanded record.
The district court granted a writ of habeas corpus, finding Goodwin’s representation deficient and prejudicial under Strickland.
The State appeals, challenging the district court’s factual findings and the legal conclusion of deficiency and prejudice.
The panel affirms, concluding Goodwin’s failure to investigate and present mitigation was deficient and prejudicial; the remedy is vacating the death sentence or resentencing to life without parole.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Deficiency of penalty-phase representation	Stankewitz argues Goodwin conducted deficient investigations and presented minimal mitigation.	Stankewitz contends Goodwin’s decisions were reasonable or strategic given the record.	Yes, deficient under Strickland
Prejudice under correct standard	Stankewitz contends additional mitigating evidence would have changed the outcome under Wong v. Belmontes.	Stankewitz’s evidence would likely be mitigatory or non-prejudicial under Belmontes.	Yes, prejudicial under Wong v. Belmontes framework
district court’s application of prejudice standard	District court applied wrong standard by considering only mitigating effects.	District court’s methodology should be reviewed on appeal.	Remand not necessary; prejudice shown under correct standard
Remand vs. direct disposition	Court should remand for proper prejudice analysis under Wong/ Belmontes.	No remand needed; record supports relief.	Affirm relief; no remand required

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (establishes deficient performance and prejudice standard)
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (U.S. Supreme Court 2003) (mitigating evidence must be developed to avoid prejudice)
Be Be Belmontes v. Ayers, 529 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2008) (double-edged mitigation evidence and potential aggravation)
Wong v. Belmontes, 558 U.S. 15 (U.S. Supreme Court 2009) (requirement to consider all relevant evidence for prejudice)
Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (U.S. Supreme Court 2005) (trial counsel must adequately review prior records for mitigation)