Moormann v. Ryan, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25007

Moormann was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death in Arizona (1985) after killing his adoptive mother during a furlough.
The case has a lengthy procedural history in state courts and federal habeas proceedings, including remands for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
On remand, district court addressed whether appellate counsel’s failure to raise certain claims on direct appeal constituted cause to overcome procedural defaults.
The central issues concern whether appellate counsel’s effectiveness was deficient for not challenging trial counsel’s reliance on insanity defense or for not pursuing alternative defenses, and whether such failures were prejudicial.
Arizona Supreme Court affirmed conviction and death sentence on direct appeal; later PCR and federal habeas petitions were denied or remanded, with multiple issues certified and reviewed on appeal.
This Ninth Circuit panel ultimately affirms the district court’s denial of habeas relief, concluding no ineffective-assistance claims were persuasive enough to overcome defaults.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance for not pursuing Christensen defense	Moormann argues Christensen evidence could show impulsivity under stress and avoid premeditation	Ryan contends no prejudice; testimony would not negate premeditation given overwhelming evidence	No prejudice; Christensen defense would not likely have changed the verdict
Waiver of lesser-included-offense instructions	Moormann contends failure to seek lesser-included instructions violated Beck v. Alabama	Moormann knowingly waived these instructions; waiver was strategic or at least not prejudicial	No ineffective assistance; waiver was strategic and no prejudice shown
Failure to call lay witnesses at sentencing	Moormann claims additional lay mitigation would have altered sentencing	Evidence presented at trial already encompassed mitigating factors; new lay testimony would be cumulative	No prejudice; cumulative mitigation evidence did not alter result; no due process violation

Christensen v. State, 129 Ariz. 32, 628 P.2d 580 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1981) (right to present impulsivity-related evidence in premeditated murder cases)
Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1980) (requirement to instruct on lesser offenses when appropriate)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1984) (standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel)
Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2000) (procedural default and prejudice in appellate counsel claims)
Pizzuto v. Arave, 280 F.3d 949 (9th Cir., 2002) (appellate counsel effectiveness; prejudice standard in merit assessments)
Wildman v. Johnson, 261 F.3d 832 (9th Cir., 2001) (appellate counsel effectiveness; prejudice assessment)
Miller v. Keeney, 882 F.2d 1428 (9th Cir., 1989) (prejudice standard for appellate failures)
Summerlin v. Stewart, 341 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir., 2003) (limitations on expert testimony relevance to impulsivity and conduct)
Wong v. Belmontes, U.S. , 130 S. Ct. 383 (Supreme Court, 2009) (reasons for assessing prejudice in penalty-phase mitigation)