Scott Clabourne v. Charles Ryan, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4162

Clabourne was convicted of murder in 1982 and sentenced to death; his federal petitions sought relief from both conviction and sentence.
His first habeas petition denied as to conviction but granted as to capital sentence; this court later affirmed in Clabourne v. Lewis, 64 F.3d 1373 (9th Cir. 1995).
He was resentenced in 1997; the district court denied relief on multiple claims, and appellate posture follows from AEDPA standards.
Arizona courts independently reviewed mitigation evidence, including mental illness, at resentencing and again on direct review, upholding the death sentence.
The district court certified one issue under Eddings; the court and court of appeals ultimately address claims of ineffective assistance at resentencing and potential procedural-default excusability under Martinez.
The court vacates the district court’s denial on the confession-based ineffectiveness claim and remands for further Martinez-based consideration; other claims are affirmed or denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether AZ Supreme Court complied with Eddings in considering mental illness	Clabourne argues AZSC ignored schizophrenia as mitigation	Arizona courts considered mental illness and gave it nonstatutory weight	Not contrary; mental health was considered and weighed as mitigation.
Martinez v. Ryan allows excusing procedural default for ineffective-assistance claims at state PCR	Martinez opens door for defaulted IAC claims	Martinez applies narrowly to post-conviction counsels’ effectiveness	Martinez applies; remand to district court to address cause and prejudice.
Whether confession-based ineffectiveness at resentencing was procedurally defaulted	Post-conviction counsel should have raised the claim; default occurred	Default should bar review absent Martinez relief	Remanded for district court to determine Martinez-based excuse of default.
Mitigation-based ineffectiveness claim at resentencing lacking merit	Counsel failed to obtain additional mental-health evaluations	Record shows no prejudice from additional evaluations	Affirmed; mitigation-based claim rejected.

Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1982) (mitigating evidence must be weighed; cannot be ignored)
Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (S. Ct. 2012) (limits on procedural default via ineffective post-conviction counsel)
Schad v. Ryan, 671 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 2011) (rejects implied nexus requirement where mitigating evidence is weighed)
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (U.S. 2002) (jury must decide aggravating factors in capital sentencing)
Kansas v. Marsh, 547 U.S. 163 (U.S. 2006) (state may determine manner of considering mitigating evidence)