Richardson v. Branker
668 F.3d 128
| 4th Cir. | 2012Background
- Richardson was convicted in 1995 of first-degree murder and kidnapping and sentenced to death after a jury found aggravating factors and the state trial court did not submit the (f)(7) age mitigation instruction.
- Richardson’s appellate counsel did not raise the failure to instruct on the (f)(7) mitigation factor on direct appeal.
- Richardson’s state habeas petition raised ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, Brady, and Atkins (mental retardation) claims, among others; the MAR court denied these claims.
- The MAR court held that appellate counsel’s performance was not deficient and, alternatively, that any error was harmless; it also denied the Brady claim and rejected the Atkins claim after an evidentiary proceeding.
- The district court granted habeas relief only on the appellate-counsel claim and denied the Brady and Atkins claims, ordering life imprisonment unless the State initiated new sentencing proceedings.
- The Fourth Circuit reversed in part, affirming the Brady and Atkins rulings, and remanding for dismissal of Richardson’s petition; the court held the MAR court’s resolution of the appellate-counsel claim was not unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellate counsel ineffective for failure to raise (f)(7) instruction | Richardson | State | No reversible error; MAR court reasonably concluded no prejudice under Strickland |
| Brady materiality of withheld evidence | Richardson | State | No Brady violation; MAR court’s decision not unreasonable under AEDPA |
| Mental retardation claim under Atkins | Richardson | State | No error; MAR court’s denial of Atkins upheld under AEDPA |
Key Cases Cited
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (stringent AEDPA deference to state-court habeas decisions)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (reasonableness standard for reviewing Strickland prejudice)
- Holden, 450 S.E.2d 878 (N.C. 1994) (independent duty to submit (f)(7) when substantial evidence supports it)
- Spruill, 452 S.E.2d 279 (N.C. 1994) (counterbalancing evidence standard for (f)(7) mitigation instruction)
- State v. Zuniga, 498 S.E.2d 611 (N.C. 1998) (context on mitigation standards)
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (Eighth Amendment prohibits execution of mentally retarded individuals)
- State v. Spruill, 452 S.E.2d 279 (N.C. 1994) (see Spruill; counterbalancing-evidence approach)