Richard Stokley v. Charles Ryan, 705 F.3d 401

Stokley, a death-sentenced inmate, challenged his conviction and sentence in federal habeas proceedings after state remedies.
The district court denied the petition; this court previously affirmed denial in Stokley v. Ryan, 659 F.3d 802 (9th Cir. 2011).
Supreme Court denied certiorari on October 1, 2012, after which Stokley sought a stay of the mandate based on Maples v. Thomas.
Maples held that abandonment by post-conviction counsel can excuse procedural default; the court considered staying the mandate under exceptional circumstances.
The panel denied a stay, finding no substantial prejudice or exceptional circumstance requiring remand; the dissent would remand for cause and prejudice analysis.
The Arizona Supreme Court had weighed mitigating evidence under Eddings v. Oklahoma and Skipper v. South Carolina, allegedly limiting mitigating factors without causal nexus to the crimes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Maples creates an exceptional circumstance to stay the mandate.	Stokley shows Maples abandonment and colorable Eddings/Skipper claims.	No substantial prejudice; no exceptional circumstance justifying a remand.	Denied; no substantial prejudice established; mandate not stayed.
Whether the Eddings error analysis requires remand for prejudice determinations.	Eddings error is structural and prejudice is per se; remand warranted.	If Eddings error occurred, harmless error standards may apply; prejudice must be shown.	Stokley cannot show substantial prejudice under Brecht/Guthrie standards; prejudice not established.
Whether the Arizona Supreme Court's treatment of mitigating evidence violated Eddings principles.	Mitigating evidence (abusive childhood, good jail behavior) was improperly deemed nonmitigating.	Arizona independently weighed evidence and did not err in considering mitigation.	Court found no reversible error in the weighting; nonetheless the issue would require remand only if prejudice shown.
Whether this court should remand to determine cause and prejudice under Maples and the merits of the underlying claim.	Constructive abandonment is established; remand appropriate for cause and prejudice analysis.	No necessity for remand given lack of prejudice and lack of exceptional circumstances.	Relies on current circumstances; panel denied remand and stayed mandate denial.

Maples v. Thomas, 132 S. Ct. 912 (2012) (abandonment and agency principles to excuse procedural default in certain post-conviction contexts)
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (procedural default rules in federal habeas; cause and prejudice requirement)
Brechet v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (prejudice requires substantial and injurious effect on the sentence)
Hitchcock v. Dugger, 481 U.S. 393 (1987) (Eddings mitigation evidence and harmless error framework in capital sentencing)
Arizona v. Stokley, 898 P.2d 454 (Ariz. 1995) (state court weighing of mitigation; consideration but not necessarily acceptance)
Williams v. Ryan, 623 F.3d 1258 (9th Cir. 2010) (Eddings error and its impact on capital sentencing reviewed in circuit context)
Styers v. Schriro, 547 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2008) (Eddings-related mitigation considerations and standard of review)
Beardslee v. Brown, 393 F.3d 899 (9th Cir. 2004) (exceptional circumstances and remand for change in law interpretation)
Adamson v. Lewis, 955 F.2d 614 (9th Cir. 1992) (analysis of procedural default and prejudice in context of habeas)
Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478 (1986) (prejudice standard in habeas review; substantial effect required)