Lay v. Royal
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 11297
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- In May 2004 Wade Lay and his son Chris attempted an armed bank robbery in Tulsa; a shootout killed a security guard. Both were tried together, pleaded not guilty but admitted conduct; Chris got life without parole and Wade Lay received death.
- Wade Lay proceeded pro se at trial (with standby counsel), made conspiratorial political claims, was convicted and sentenced to death; OCCA affirmed on direct appeal and denied post-conviction relief.
- Lay filed a § 2254 habeas petition in 2009. The district court stayed proceedings for alleged incompetence, ordered evaluations, then lifted the stay after Ryan v. Gonzales and denied habeas relief in 2015; a COA was granted on competency and counsel-related claims.
- The Tenth Circuit considered whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a competency-based stay, and reviewed claims of procedural and substantive incompetence, valid waiver of counsel, ineffective assistance (appellate/trial), and errors from the joint trial/sentencing.
- The panel affirmed: denial of a stay was proper given AEDPA limits and state-court merits/ procedural bars; OCCA’s findings on competence, waiver, ineffective-assistance, and joint sentencing were not unreasonable under § 2254(d).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competency-based stay of habeas proceedings | Lay: district court should have stayed habeas until restored to competency | State: claims were adjudicated on merits or procedurally barred so stay unnecessary under Ryan and AEDPA | Denial of stay not an abuse of discretion — stay unnecessary because record limits and claims were merit-adjudicated or barred |
| Procedural and substantive competence at trial | Lay: trial court should have held competency hearing; he was substantively incompetent | State/OCCA: no bona fide doubt; trial behavior and counsel’s lack of concern support competency; additional evidence insufficient to show substantive incompetence | OCCA’s findings reasonable under § 2254(d); procedural claim barred and substantive claim lacked clear evidentiary support |
| Validity of waiver of counsel (Faretta) | Lay: waiver was not knowing/voluntary or competent, especially for penalty phase | State/OCCA: Lay was competent; judge warned him; he understood stakes and voluntarily waived counsel | Waiver was valid; Faretta requirements met and OCCA decision reasonable |
| Ineffective assistance (appellate and trial) and joint trial/sentencing errors | Lay: appellate counsel omitted Confrontation Clause, competency, mitigation, and jury-instruction claims; joint trial caused non-individualized sentencing and Bruton issues | State/OCCA: many claims procedurally barred or meritless; joint trial was waived by refusing severance; jury instructed to individualize sentencing | Claims either procedurally defaulted or lacked prejudice/merit under Strickland; joint trial and sentencing were not fundamentally unfair; affirmance upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Ryan v. Gonzales, 568 U.S. 57 (stay for competency in habeas; petitioners have no statutory right to competency during habeas)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (Sixth Amendment right to self-representation)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance standard)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (admitting non-testifying co-defendant’s confession and Confrontation Clause)
- Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (factors for competency inquiry)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (review limited to the state-court record under AEDPA)
- Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (individualized consideration in capital sentencing)