Ryder Ex Rel. Ryder v. Warrior
810 F.3d 724
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- In 1999 James Ryder killed Daisy and Sam Hallum; convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death after a jury recommended death for one count and life without parole for the other.
- Before trial and during post-conviction doctors evaluated Ryder; reports showed long‑standing personality disorder and later findings consistent with a psychotic disorder (schizophrenia/paranoid type); a retrospective competency jury found Ryder competent at trial.
- At sentencing Ryder repeatedly refused to allow counsel to present mitigating evidence and told the court he preferred death; the trial court found he knowingly and voluntarily waived mitigation, though counsel presented two witnesses over his objections.
- Ryder filed federal habeas raising multiple claims and sought a competency‑based stay/abeyance of habeas proceedings; federal experts conflicted on whether Ryder was competent when limitations ran and whether he later became incompetent.
- The district court found Ryder competent when the statute of limitations expired (so no equitable tolling) but later found him presently incompetent for habeas purposes and appointed his mother as next friend; the district court denied habeas relief on the merits and denied COA on all grounds.
- The Tenth Circuit granted COA on three issues: (1) denial of a competency‑based stay; (2) competency at trial and adequacy of Oklahoma’s competency procedures; and (3) ineffective assistance for failing to investigate mental health/mitigation and appellate counsel’s failure to raise that claim. Applying AEDPA deference, the panel affirmed denial of habeas.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ryder) | Defendant's Argument (State/Warden) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying a competency‑based stay of habeas | Ryder: was incompetent when limitations ran or soon after; several claims would substantially benefit from his assistance, so stay required | State: Ryder’s core claims were adjudicated on the merits or resolvable as a matter of law; petitioner’s participation would not change review and indefinite stay undermines AEDPA | Denied; district court did not abuse discretion because Ryder’s main claims were record‑based/decided on the merits and thus would not benefit from his assistance (Gonzales guidance) |
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective at the retrospective competency trial | Ryder: counsel failed to investigate extra‑record issues, didn’t present lay testimony about trial demeanor, and prejudicially told jurors Ryder was on death row | State: counsel reasonably focused on expert evidence; some investigation occurred; informing jurors of sentence was relevant to explain refusal to allow mitigation | Denied under Strickland with AEDPA deference: counsel’s investigation and strategic choices were reasonable and no reasonable probability of a different outcome was shown |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective in failing adequately to investigate/raise competency and to develop mitigation | Ryder: counsel failed to investigate mental‑health background and present mitigation; his own untreated illness prevented proper mitigation presentation | State: Ryder knowingly waived mitigation at sentencing; counsel’s limited mitigation complied with waiver and was reasonable | Denied: retrospective competency held Ryder competent at trial (deferential), and because Ryder waived mitigation, counsel was not ineffective; Schriro/Landrigan and Wallace controls |
| Whether appellate counsel ineffective for not raising trial counsel ineffectiveness (cause to excuse default) | Ryder: appellate counsel’s failure prevented the claim being timely raised, so cause and prejudice exist | State: omitted issue was meritless or reasonably defended; OCCA considered and rejected the appellate‑ineffective claim | Denied: OCCA adjudicated merits; AEDPA deference applies; appellate counsel not ineffective because underlying trial‑ineffectiveness claim lacked merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) (stay-and-abeyance must be compatible with AEDPA’s goals)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011) (AEDPA limits review to state‑court record for claims adjudicated on the merits)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465 (2007) (competent defendant’s refusal to allow mitigation can defeat Strickland prejudice showing)
- Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007) (claim of incompetency to be executed is not ripe until execution date set)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (deference under §2254(d) when state decision unexplained; burden to show no reasonable basis for denial)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (standards for "contrary to" and "unreasonable application" under AEDPA)
- Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348 (1996) (legal standard for competency to stand trial)
- Gonzales v. Thomas/Ryan v. Gonzales, 133 S. Ct. 696 (2013) (Supreme Court described outer limits of district court’s equitable authority to grant competency‑based stays of habeas)