Sophia Daire v. Mary Lattimore, 780 F.3d 1215

Daire, a California state prisoner, challenged a 40-year three-strikes sentence for first-degree burglary under AEDPA § 2254.
She alleged ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing for failing to present evidence of mental illness and substance abuse history.
The Romero motion and sentencing proceeded without presenting Daire’s mental health evidence; the court denied the motion and imposed the sentence.
State courts held counsel’s performance reasonable and that the outcome would not have been different even with additional mental health evidence.
Daire’s state habeas petition argued counsel’s failure to investigate and present mental health history prejudiced the outcome; the district court found potential prejudice but ultimately denied relief under circuit precedent.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed, addressing both the Strickland performance and prejudice prongs and AEDPA deference, and concluding the state court’s decision was reasonable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Strickland applies to noncapital sentencing	Daire argues Strickland governs noncapital sentencing.	Lattimore contends Strickland’s applicability in noncapital sentencing is not clearly established.	Strickland applicability not clearly established; relief denied on other grounds.
Whether counsel’s omission of mental health evidence at Romero hearing was ineffective	Daire asserts omitted mental health evidence was deficient performance.	Lattimore maintains trial strategy and evidence already presented sufficed.	No unreasonable performance; state court reasonable.
Whether the omission prejudiced the outcome	Omission could have changed Romero motion and sentence.	Record shows it would not have altered the result.	Prejudice not shown; district court’s prejudice assessment reasonable.
whether AEDPA deference requires reversal	State court misapplied Strickland; decision unreasonably applied clearly established federal law.	State court’s decision was reasonable under AEDPA standards.	State court decision reasonable; no relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes performance and prejudice standards for ineffective assistance)
Wong v. Belmontes, 558 U.S. 15 (U.S. 2009) (double deference in evaluating state-court judgments under AEDPA)
Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (U.S. 2005) (counsel may tailor investigation strategy not to reveal damaging evidence)
Davis v. Grigas, 443 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2006) (Strickland applicability to noncapital sentencing questioned)
Cooper-Smith v. Palmateer, 397 F.3d 1236 (9th Cir. 2005) (Strickland applicability in noncapital contexts debated)
Harrington v. Richter, 750 F.3d 793 (9th Cir. 2014) (de novo review of state-court conclusions under AEDPA)
Mickey v. Ayers, 606 F.3d 1223 (9th Cir. 2010) (considerations on strategic decision-making and evidence omission)
People v. Carmony, 33 Cal.4th 367 (Cal. 2004) (three-strikes guidance and discretion to disregard prior strikes)