Ryan Moore v. Don Helling
763 F.3d 1011
9th Cir.2014Background
- Moore was convicted in Nevada state court of first-degree murder under a Kazalyn instruction that did not define willful, deliberate, and premeditated separately.
- Nevada later invalidated Kazalyn and adopted Byford defining the three terms; Byford was applied retroactively to cases pending on direct appeal per Nika.
- Moore’s direct appeal occurred before Byford’s decision was applied to his case; the Nevada Supreme Court rejected his Byford claim.
- Moore sought federal habeas relief alleging due process violations from the Kazalyn instruction; the district court granted relief; the Ninth Circuit initially affirmed but then granted rehearing and reversed.
- The court ultimately held Woodall undermined Babb’s reasoning, and that the Nevada court did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law; case remanded with instructions to deny petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the state court’s failure to apply Byford constitute an unreasonable application of federal law? | Moore | State | No longer clearly established after Woodall; not unreasonable under §2254(d)(1) per Woodall. |
| Whether Woodall limits the unreasonable-refusal-to-extend framework from Babb? | Moore | State | Woodall ove rruled Babb’s applicability for these facts; not an unreasonable application. |
| Whether changes in state law apply to convictions pending on appeal when the law changes? | Babb applied change to pending conviction | Woodall undermines that rule; fairminded disagreement exists | Not clearly established under §2254(d)(1) due to Woodall; cannot rely on Babb. |
| Did Moore’s conviction become final before Byford’s change limited? | Moore’s conviction pending appeal when Byford issued | State | Moore’s conviction became final in 2001; Nevada court did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (U.S. 1987) (new rules must be applied to non-final convictions)
- Fiore v. White, 531 U.S. 225 (U.S. 2001) (clarifications of state law can apply retroactively to finalized cases)
- Byford v. State, 994 P.2d 700 (Nev. 2000) (defined willful, deliberate, and premeditated; changed law)
- Nika v. State, 198 P.3d 839 (Nev. 2008) (Byford change applicable to cases on direct appeal when decided)
- Babb v. Lozowsky, 719 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2013) (unreasonable application of Byford absent Woodall framework)
- Woodall v. S., 134 S. Ct. 1697 (S. Ct. 2014) (limits extending Supreme Court rulings to new fact patterns; clarifies §2254(d)(1))
- White v. Woodall, 134 S. Ct. 1697 (S. Ct. 2014) (clarifies application of §2254(d)(1) post-Byford and post-Babb)
- Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (U.S. 1987) (new rules retroactivity framework)