Pete Rogovich v. Charles L. Ryan
694 F.3d 1094
9th Cir.2012Background
- Rogovich was convicted of four murders and related crimes in Arizona and sentenced to death for three trailer-park killings; insanity was his sole trial defense.
- Arizona courts permitted an insanity defense without requiring Rogovich’s express on-record consent, a point later upheld by the Arizona Supreme Court citing Hurles.
- The sentencing included three aggravators, notably the F(8) multiple-homicides aggravator, which the state proved through a court’s independent review and trial record.
- Rogovich raised three habeas claims in federal court: (i) lack of required express consent to insanity defense, (ii) ineffective assistance for not challenging the F(8) factor, and (iii) ineffective assistance for failing to challenge the prosecutor’s closing arguments.
- The district court denied habeas relief; this court reviews de novo under AEDPA and affirmed, and also denied a certificate of appealability on an uncertified due process claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether express consent to insanity defense is required | Rogovich contends consent is constitutionally required | Ryan argues no on-record consent is required | No express consent required |
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not challenging the (F)(8) factor | Rogovich claims deficient performance and prejudice | Ryan argues court independently reviewed the factor; no prejudice | No ineffective assistance; independently reviewed and upheld |
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not challenging the closing arguments | Rogovich claims prosecutorial misdirection violated Strickland | Ryan argues challenged issues would be meritless in light of controlling precedent | No ineffective assistance; argument was not deficient and lacking prejudice |
| Whether Rogovich is entitled to a COA on uncertified due-process claim | State failed to collect biological evidence at arrest | No substantial constitutional violation shown | COA denied; no substantial showing of a constitutional right denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Hurles, 914 P.2d 1291 (Ariz. 1996) (insanity defense does not violate presumption of innocence or burden of proof)
- State v. Hurles, 914 P.2d 1291 (Ariz. 1996) (insanity defense does not require express consent)
- Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (U.S. 1960) (competence to stand trial requires rational, factual understanding and communication with counsel)
- Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858 (U.S. 1989) (presence at all critical stages of trial; rights to trial and counsel guidance)
- Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1993) (knowing and voluntary waiver principles apply to trial-related rights)
- Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (U.S. 2008) (waiver of counsel for trial proceedings in certain contexts)
- Doe v. Schriro, unavailable (2011) (AEDPA standards and harmless error framework in habeas review)
- Cornell, 878 P.2d 1352 (Ariz. 1994) (prosecution arguments about insanity not reversible for related reasoning)
- Turner v. Calderon, 281 F.3d 851 (9th Cir. 2002) (counsel not required to raise meritless issues on appeal)
- Miller v. Keeney, 882 F.2d 1428 (9th Cir. 1989) (counsel not required to pursue untenable issues on appeal)
- Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797 (U.S. 1991) (being the last reasoned state court decision in habeas review)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (U.S. 2011) (review of state court Strickland adjudications is doubly deferential)
- Gerlaugh v. Stewart, 129 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 1997) (independent state court review limits prejudice showing in Strickland claims)
- State v. Dann, 79 P.3d 58 (Ariz. 2003) (F(8) aggravator satisfied by a short, uninterrupted span of time)