Michael White v. Charles Ryan, 895 F.3d 641

Background

Michael White was convicted of first-degree murder for killing David Johnson; the trial court found one statutory aggravator—pecuniary gain (life insurance)—and sentenced White to death.
After direct appeal and a post-conviction relief (PCR) grant limited to penalty-phase, White was resentenced to death; at resentencing new counsel (McVay) failed to challenge the pecuniary-gain aggravator and presented almost no mitigation.
McVay did not meaningfully investigate White’s background: readily available school, medical (including Graves’ disease/hyperthyroidism), ADOC psychiatric records, family history, head injury, low childhood IQ, substance history, and evidence of manipulation by co-defendant Susan Johnson.
The state PCR court denied relief, concluding counsel’s choices were strategic and that any omitted mitigation would not have changed the sentence; the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed.
The federal district court denied White’s habeas petition; the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding counsel’s failures were both deficient under Strickland and prejudicial, and ordered a conditional writ (new sentencing or lesser sentence).

Issues

Issue	White's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether resentencing counsel performed deficiently by failing to challenge the pecuniary-gain aggravator	McVay failed to challenge the sole aggravator due to a mistaken belief the issue was settled on direct appeal, not a strategic choice; this was deficient performance	The aggravator was properly found and counsel’s omission was reasonable or strategic	Counsel’s omission was not strategic but based on legal mistake; performance was deficient
Whether counsel performed deficiently by failing to investigate and present mitigation (medical, psychiatric, intellectual, social history)	Counsel ignored readily available records and failed to hire experts or mitigate despite clear indicators of mental illness, Graves’ disease, low IQ, abuse history, and co-defendant manipulation	The PCR court found no duty to obtain records absent stronger suggestion of mitigating value and concluded lack of prejudice	Counsel’s failure to investigate was objectively unreasonable under prevailing norms and AEDPA review; deficient performance established
Whether White was prejudiced by counsel’s failures (Strickland prejudice prong)	Cumulative omitted mitigation (mental illness, Graves’, low IQ, abuse/neglect, co-defendant’s role) would likely have altered sentencing balance given only one weak aggravator	State argued omitted items individually insufficient and PCR court had considered similar evidence at resentencing	The Ninth Circuit held prejudice shown: reasonable probability of different sentence given weak aggravation and substantial unpresented mitigation; PCR court applied wrong prejudice analysis
Whether the state court unreasonably applied federal precedent (AEDPA deference)	State court’s findings were contrary to and unreasonable applications of Strickland, Wiggins, and related Supreme Court precedent	State relied on PCR factual findings and cited Coleman; urged deference under AEDPA	Ninth Circuit: the PCR court unreasonably applied controlling Supreme Court precedent; federal relief warranted (conditional writ)

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) (counsel’s duty to conduct a thorough mitigation investigation; evaluate cumulative mitigation)
Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005) (ABA mitigation guidelines are guides to reasonableness; counsel’s failure to examine readily available records can be deficient)
Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30 (2009) (deficient investigation and unpresented mitigation can establish prejudice)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (counsel obligations and relevance of mitigating evidence; cumulative-review requirement)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (limits on post hoc rationalization of counsel’s strategy and AEDPA deference principles)
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011) (AEDPA standard for federal habeas review of state-court adjudications)
Crace v. Herzog, 798 F.3d 840 (9th Cir. 2015) (federal review when state court misapplies Strickland)
Coleman v. Calderon, 150 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 1998) (discussed by PCR court but distinguished by Ninth Circuit on facts)