Miller v. State of Nevada, 3:19-cv-00673

Background

Miller was convicted in Nevada of two counts of first-degree murder with deadly-weapon enhancements after a 2006 retrial (the original 2001 conviction had been reversed on appeal). The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the 2006 judgment.
Facts: police found Miller with a self-inflicted gunshot wound outside an apartment; two victims inside (his estranged wife and her boyfriend) were fatally shot; the victimized couple’s timeline, witness statements, and a recovered .45 revolver linked Miller to the scene.
Trial counsel history: Robert Dolan (2001 trial), Andrew Myers (interim), and Steven McGuire (appointed for the 2006 retrial); Miller complained about McGuire and moved for substitute counsel, which the state court denied after a hearing.
State post-conviction relief was denied; Miller then filed federal habeas under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 raising multiple ineffective-assistance and related constitutional claims (he abandoned Ground 1). Respondents argued several claims were procedurally defaulted; Miller invoked Martinez v. Ryan to excuse defaults.
The district court adjudicated the remaining grounds on the merits (Grounds 2–6 and 5–6 on sentencing/substitution issues) and denied relief, concluding Martinez did not excuse defaults for several claims and that the state courts’ rulings were not unreasonable under AEDPA.
The court also denied a certificate of appealability.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ground 2: Counsel conflict / failure to request alternate counsel	Miller: McGuire had a conflict, revealed privileged communications at the hearing, and failed to advocate; actual conflict warrants presumed prejudice under Cuyler	State: No actual irreconcilable conflict; the state court conducted a hearing and found no conflict; no reason to presume prejudice	Denied — Miller failed to show an actual conflict that adversely affected performance; claim not substantial under Martinez
Ground 3: Failure to present medical evidence corroborating memory loss	Miller: Counsel should have introduced medical proof of memory loss from his self-inflicted wound to corroborate his testimony; absence prejudiced defense because he was sole defense witness	State: Counsel reasonably avoided further medical evidence to prevent admission of more damaging military/mental-health records; evidence against Miller was strong so additional proof wouldn’t have changed outcome	Denied — counsel’s investigation/strategy reasonable; no prejudice shown; claim not substantial under Martinez
Ground 4: Failure to investigate mental health / present defense theory	Miller: Counsel failed to obtain experts and present a mental-health based theory (suicidal intent) similar to his first trial	State: Counsel strategically avoided opening door to harmful evidence (homicidal/violent ideation) and did present suicidal-intent theory; strategic choices reasonable	Denied — record shows tactical choice to avoid incriminating records and presentation of a suicide-intent defense; no Strickland prejudice; Martinez inapplicable
Ground 5: Failure to present mental-health mitigation at sentencing	Miller: Counsel omitted evidence (depression, suicidal ideation, medications) that could have mitigated sentence	State: The tactic prevented introduction of damaging evidence about prior homicidal thoughts/domestic violence; sentencing evidence of victim impact was strong	Denied — appellate court reasonably concluded strategy was permissible and Miller failed to show likely different penalty
Ground 6: Denial of substitution of counsel / due process	Miller: Trial court failed to remove McGuire after his comment that a murder conviction would be "a win," and inquiry was inadequate; lack of conflict-free counsel harmed him	State: District and Nevada Supreme Court found adequate inquiry, no genuine conflict, and denials within discretion under Garcia/Young	Denied — Nevada courts’ rulings were not contrary to or unreasonable applications of Supreme Court law; no Sixth Amendment violation

Key Cases Cited

Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (absence or inadequate assistance of counsel in initial-review collateral proceeding may establish cause to excuse procedural default of IAC claims)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance and prejudice)
Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (presumption of prejudice where counsel had an actual conflict of interest that adversely affected performance)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (AEDPA deference; state-court decisions deserve wide latitude)
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (limitations on federal review of state-court records and deference to counsel’s strategic choices)
Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (definition of "contrary to" and "unreasonable application" under AEDPA)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (framework for § 2254(d) review)
Del Muro v. United States, 87 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir.) (conflict where counsel had to argue own ineffectiveness at a hearing)
Ramirez v. Ryan, 937 F.3d 1230 (9th Cir.) (clarifies Martinez standards and substantiality requirement)
Daire v. Lattimore, 818 F.3d 454 (9th Cir.) (when psychiatric history is both mitigating and incriminating, counsel’s tactical judgment is afforded deference)
Wong v. Belmontes, 558 U.S. 15 (counsel’s mitigation strategy and deference to tactical decisions)
Wood v. Georgia, 450 U.S. 261 (trial judge must substitute counsel if irreconcilable conflict demonstrated)
Hudson v. Rushen, 686 F.2d 826 (9th Cir.) (irreconcilable conflict that prevents adequate defense can violate Sixth Amendment)
Stenson v. Lambert, 504 F.3d 873 (9th Cir.) (factors for assessing intolerable attorney-client conflict)
Schell v. Witek, 218 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir.) (analysis for determining Sixth Amendment violation from substitution denials)