Richard Hurles v. Charles L. Ryan
706 F.3d 1021
9th Cir.2013Background
- Hurles seeks relief from denial of federal habeas petition challenging capital murder conviction and death sentence.
- Murder occurred in 1992 at a Buckeye, Arizona library; victim Kay Blanton stabbed 37 times.
- Hurles was represented by appointed counsel; motion for a second co-counsel was denied; he challenged that denial as a due process/ineffective assistance claim.
- Hurles’s special-action petition and related proceedings involved Judge Hilliard; standing and recusal issues arose in Arizona appellate proceedings.
- Judge Hilliard presided over guilt, penalty, and post-conviction stages; post-conviction relief claims included judicial bias.
- AEDPA governs federal review; the court remands for an evidentiary hearing on judicial bias but otherwiseAffirms the district court’s denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural default of IAC claims | Hurles exhausted via state court; not defaulted on merits. | Claims defaulted for not raising in state court’s higher court. | Claims procedurally defaulted; review barred. |
| Sentencing counsel effectiveness | Counsel failed to connect mental health evidence to conduct; prejudice shown. | Counsel acted within reasonable professional standards; no prejudice. | State court reasonably denied IAC; no prejudice shown. |
| Appellate counsel effectiveness | Appellate counsel should have raised cumulative mitigating weight issue. | No error; state court independently reviewed sentence. | No prejudice; appellate counsel not ineffective. |
| Judicial bias (recusal) | Judge Hilliard’s participation in special action created bias risk; due process violation. | No constitutional bias; factual record supports no recusal need. | Remand for evidentiary hearing on judicial bias. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (test for ineffective assistance; deficient performance and prejudice)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (U.S. 2011) (highly deferential AEDPA review; intrinsic review limits)
- Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35 (U.S. 1975) (due process requires impartial judge; recusal standards)
- Caperton v. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (U.S. 2009) (appearance of bias; independent examination of recusal)
- Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (U.S. 1955) (accusatory process and recusal concerns)
- Lavoie, 475 U.S. 813 (U.S. 1986) (bias standards; due process recusal considerations)
- Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (U.S. 1927) (appearance of bias and recusal in governmental proceedings)
- Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1982) (mitigating evidence must be considered)
- Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (U.S. 1978) (mitigating factors in capital sentencing)
- Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2004) (AEDPA standard and deference to state courts on factual review)