Sean Carter v. Bobby Bogan, 900 F.3d 754

Background

In 1997 Sean Carter was convicted of aggravated murder, rape, and aggravated robbery for killing his adoptive grandmother; jury recommended death and trial court imposed death sentence.
Pretrial competency was litigated twice; two experts (Palumbo, Alcorn) found Carter competent, one (King) found competence a close call and questioned psychosis. Trial court found Carter competent; Ohio Supreme Court affirmed.
During trial Carter disrupted proceedings, declared he wanted to plead guilty, attempted to lunge at the judge, and was removed from the courtroom to view by video.
Postconviction and federal habeas proceedings raised claims that Carter was incompetent at guilt and penalty phases and that trial counsel were ineffective (failure to pursue MRI/neurological testing, failure to adequately present mitigation, failure to push competency issue).
District court denied habeas; Sixth Circuit affirmed, applying AEDPA deference to state-court factual findings and Strickland standard to ineffective-assistance claims; Supreme Court’s intervening decision in Ryan v. Gonzales limited some proceedings but did not alter merits deference.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Competency at trial (guilt and penalty phases)	Carter: record (hallucinations, family history, suicide attempts, threats to counsel, courtroom outbursts) established incompetence and warranted further inquiry	State: two expert findings of competence and the record did not compel a contrary factual finding; outbursts were cumulative/evidence of tactical avoidance	Court: affirmed state courts — their competency determination was not an unreasonable factual finding under §2254(d)(2)
Failure to hold midtrial/third competency hearing sua sponte	Carter: courtroom behavior after competency hearings required reevaluation	State: evidence of behavior was cumulative of what was presented earlier; no new qualitatively different evidence	Court: no unreasonable application of law; trial court not required to reopen competency hearings
Ineffective assistance re: competency (failure to present additional evidence or testify about counsel breakdown)	Carter: counsel should have offered reports, testified about inability to work with him, and requested further testing/hearing	State: record already documented communication breakdown, suicide attempts, and experts’ testimony; additional evidence would be cumulative or was not part of state record	Held: no reasonable argument that counsel’s performance fell below Strickland or that prejudice resulted; state adjudication not unreasonable
Ineffective assistance in mitigation (failure to obtain MRI; mitigation strategy)	Carter: counsel failed to pursue MRI/neurological testing and adopted damaging mitigation (ASPD/mercy) instead of adaptability-to-prison theory	State: mitigation presentation included abundant social/medical records and expert testimony; MRI was not recommended by examiner and results could be nonhelpful; ASPD is a recognized mitigating factor	Held: counsel’s choices were within range of reasonable professional judgment and not prejudicial under Strickland; state-court rejection reasonable under AEDPA

Key Cases Cited

Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348 (due process forbids trial of known incompetent defendant)
Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (trial court must inquire when substantial doubt about competency)
Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (competency standard: understand proceedings and assist counsel)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-part ineffective-assistance-of-counsel test)
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (AEDPA review limited to state-court record)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (unreasonable-application standard under §2254(d)(1))
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (deference to state court requires errors so lacking in justification that no fairminded jurist could agree)
Ryan v. Gonzales, 568 U.S. 57 (limits on competency stays in habeas; some claims adjudicated on the merits in state court)