Richard Hurles v. Charles L. Ryan
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 9255
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Hurles stabbed librarian Kay Blanton 37 times in a Buckeye, Arizona library in 1992 after an attempted rape; convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death by Judge Ruth Hilliard after aggravation/mitigation hearing.
- Defense sought co-counsel due to trial complexity and expected witnesses; the court denied the motion.
- Judge Hilliard faced a special-action petition challenging the denial of co-counsel; Arizona Court of Appeals held she lacked standing to file and the petition was improper for a single-case advocacy.
- Hurles challenged trial, sentencing, and post-conviction proceedings in federal habeas corpus, raising claims including judicial bias and ineffective assistance of counsel; several claims were defaulted under AEDPA.
- Hurles filed multiple PCR petitions; he sought recusal of Judge Hilliard from subsequent proceedings; the second PCR raised judicial-bias claims against Hilliard.
- The panel remanded for an evidentiary hearing on judicial bias and remanded for Martinez-based consideration of appellate counsel’s failure to challenge neurological testing; the district court otherwise affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial bias due to Judge Hilliard’s participation | Hurles asserts bias from Judge Hilliard’s role in special action | Hurles (the State) argues lack of bias; proceedings were ancillary | Remand for evidentiary hearing on bias |
| Appellate counsel’s failure to raise Ake claim | Hurles claims appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising Ake-related failure at trial | Appellate counsel acted within reasonable professional judgment | Remand for Martinez-based consideration of the claim (partial) |
| Effect of neurological testing denial on sentencing | Ake claim should have secured funding for neurological testing | Testing was not required and cost/necessity debated | Partial remand to consider appellate counsel’s failure to challenge testing denial |
| Whether sentencing counsel’s mitigation presentation was deficient | Hurles contends failure to connect mental illness to crime reduced mitigation value | Counsel presented substantial mitigation; no deficient performance | No prejudice; no IAC on sentencing |
| Appellate review of death-sentence should consider cumulative mitigation | Nonstatutory mitigating evidence should be weighed cumulatively | Arizona law allowed consideration of mitigating factors individually | State court properly conducted review; no relief on this ground |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective assistance standard; prejudice required)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 121 S. Ct. 2130 (2011) (AEDPA deferential review; highly deferential standard)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (clearly established law; AEDPA deference framework)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012) (excusing procedural default for ineffective-assistance claims based on post-conviction counsel)
- Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985) (state must provide psychiatric defense support to indigent defendant when insanity at issue)
- Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009) (due process requires recusal in high-risk bias situations)
- Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35 (1975) (due process requires fair tribunal; appearance of bias relevant)