Gregory Dickens v. Charles L. Ryan
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16131
9th Cir.2012Background
- Gregory Dickens, Arizona state prisoner, appeals district court denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging death sentences on two felony-murder counts for the 1991 Bernstein killings.
- Dickens challenges (a) application of Enmund v. Florida and Tison v. Arizona by the Arizona Supreme Court, (b) its factual determinations, and (c) his trial counsel’s alleged ineffective assistance at sentencing.
- Arizona Supreme Court held Dickens was a major participant and acted with reckless indifference under Enmund/Tison, sustaining death eligibility.
- District court denied habeas relief; the panel reviews de novo, focusing on the last reasoned state-court decision.
- Dickens raised a new, enhanced ineffective-assistance claim (FAS/organic brain damage) in federal court, which Arizona did not fairly present, triggering procedural default.
- The court partially grants relief by vacating/remanding for Martinez v. Ryan-based determination on cause for procedural default.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the Arizona Supreme Court’s Enmund/Tison ruling objectively reasonable under AEDPA? | Dickens asserts Enmund/Tison were misapplied to him. | Arizona can rely on Enmund/Tison given Dickens’s major participation and reckless indifference. | Not objectively unreasonable under AEDPA. |
| Was the Arizona Supreme Court’s factual determination unreasonable given the record? | Dickens disputes credibility and factual findings (Amaral, etc.). | State court credibility determinations are due deference. | No, not unreasonable in light of the record. |
| Did Dickens procedurally default his ineffective-assistance claim and does Martinez provide cause to overcome it? | New, enhanced mitigation evidence should have been considered; Martinez may apply. | Martinez not applicable or exhausted; default should bar relief. | The district court’s cause determination is remanded to assess Martinez applicability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (U.S. 1982) (death eligibility limited to those with direct involvement)
- Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1987) (major participation + reckless indifference allows death sentence)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (U.S. 2011) (AEDPA review requires objective unreasonableness)
- Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (U.S. 2003) (rule: appellate review must be objectively unreasonable)
- Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (U.S. 2005) (standards for certificate of appealability and prejudice)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (U.S. 2012) (narrow equitable exception allowing cause for default when PCR counsel ineffective)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (U.S. 1991) (no constitutional right to counsel in state postconviction proceedings; exceptions later refined)
- Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1986) (cause must be shown for procedural default; exhaustion considerations)
- Wright v. Van Patten, 552 U.S. 120 (U.S. 2008) (distinguish when clearly established law applies to new factual contexts)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (contrasts 'clearly established Federal law' with new contexts)