Kevin Miles v. Charles Ryan, 2012 WL 3641740

Miles was convicted of first-degree felony murder, dangerous kidnapping, and dangerous armed robbery for a car-jacking in 1992 Tucson; Baeuerlen was killed during the car-jacking.
At sentencing, the PSR noted cocaine use and a social history indicating adoption, an alcoholic mother, and some mobility; Miles argued mitigation including drug addiction.
Sattler, Miles’s trial counsel, presented Dr. Levy who testified about cocaine intoxication affecting Miles’ state of mind; the court found Dr. Levy’s testimony lacking foundation and excluded some opinions.
The trial court sentenced Miles to death, finding three aggravating factors and weighing them against mitigation; it rejected drug-related mitigation.
On PCR, Arizona courts held Sattler’s performance was not deficient and Miles failed to show prejudice; the state court ordered an evidentiary hearing, and new mitigation information emerged.
On federal habeas review, the district court allowed additional mitigation work and experts, and the Ninth Circuit addressed both AEDPA deference and the potential Martinez v. Ryan implications.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel’s mitigation strategy was deficient for not focusing on addiction	Miles argues failure to emphasize addiction was deficient and prejudicial	Sattler strategically focused on depression and normalcy; addiction was not the controlling mitigating factor at the time	Not deficient; strategy reasonable and no prejudice under AEDPA
Whether exclusion of Dr. Levy’s addiction testimony constitutes deficient performance	Exclusion deprived Miles of evidence about impairment at the time of crime	Excluded testimony would add little beyond what PSR and other testimony showed	Not prejudicial; even if excluded, impact negligible
Whether Sattler’s investigation of Miles's social history was deficient	Sattler failed to thoroughly investigate Miles’s background, missing critical pre-high school information	Strategy justified given the contested mitigation approach; investigation reasonably tailored to strategy	Not deficient under AEDPA; strategy reasonable and investigation adequate
Whether Martinez v. Ryan applies to allow new evidence or different review of the failure-to-investigate claim	Martinez allows relief where post-conviction counsel’s ineffectiveness taints underlying claims	Martinez does not apply to reverse when post-conviction counsel acted adequately and the underlying claim lacks merit	Martinez does not alter result; no relief

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (two-pronged test for ineffective assistance)
Pinholster v. Ayers, 131 S. Ct. 1399 (U.S. Supreme Court 2011) (limits evidence in habeas review; strategy deference under AEDPA)
Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111 (U.S. Supreme Court 2009) (doubly deferential review under AEDPA for Strickland claims)
Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30 (U.S. Supreme Court 2009) (duty to investigate mitigation despite defendant’s cooperation)
Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (U.S. Supreme Court 2005) (counsel's mitigation investigation deficient despite minimal participation by defendant)
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (U.S. Supreme Court 2003) (thorough investigation required; failure to uncover mitigating evidence)
James v. Ryan, 679 F.3d 780 (9th Cir. 2012) (tar evidence of background substantially influences mitigation)
Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (U.S. Supreme Court 2012) (exception to good cause for ineffective post-conviction counsel when underlying merits are substantial)