State of Arizona v. Darrel Peter Pandeli, 242 Ariz. 175

Background

Darrel Pandeli was resentenced to death after this Court vacated and remanded earlier death-sentence proceedings; his 2006 resentencing jury again imposed death and this Court affirmed.
In 2011 Pandeli filed a post-conviction relief (PCR) petition alleging numerous errors, including 15 ineffective-assistance-of-counsel (IAC) claims and a due-process claim about the State expert’s testimony.
The PCR court granted relief on all IAC claims and the due-process claim, set aside the death sentence, and ordered a new aggravation/penalty-phase trial.
The State appealed; the Supreme Court reviews mixed questions of law/fact de novo for legal issues, defers to factual findings unless clearly erroneous, and applies Strickland’s two-prong IAC standard.
This Court found the PCR court made sparse specific findings, failed to show prejudice under Strickland, and reversed—finding counsel’s contested choices were strategic or reasonable and that the State’s expert testimony did not violate due process.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
IAC for failing to cross-examine State expert Dr. Bayless	Failure to cross-examine was unpreparedness and constituted deficient performance that prejudiced sentencing	Counsel made a reasoned strategic choice to avoid giving Bayless a platform and instead rebutted with defense experts	Held: No IAC—decision was strategic, supported by preparation and rebuttal testimony
IAC for failure to obtain brain imaging and develop mitigation nexus	Brain imaging (e.g., QEEG) and deeper investigation would have shown frontal-lobe impairment and a stronger nexus to the crime	Counsel obtained neuropsychological evaluations, presented experts tying childhood/impairment to the offense, and reasonably declined scans as unnecessary or unreliable	Held: No IAC—investigation and expert proof were adequate; scans were a reasonable strategic omission
IAC based on multiple other alleged omissions (voir dire, objections, co-counsel inexperience, mitigation presentation)	Cumulative omissions deprived Pandeli of effective counsel and prejudiced outcome	Individual acts were within reasonable professional judgment, vigorously litigated where possible, and part of defensible strategy; no cumulative prejudice shown	Held: No IAC—court will not aggregate non-prejudicial or strategic decisions into reversible error
Due process challenge to Dr. Bayless’s testimony (malingering, antisocial PD)	Bayless’s opinions were objectively false/misleading and denied Pandeli sentencing on accurate information	Disagreement among experts goes to weight, not due process; Bayless’s testimony was not shown to be objectively false nor nontestimonial error	Held: No due-process violation—battle-of-experts permissible; no objective falsity established

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (jury must find aggravating factors creating eligibility for death)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (reasonableness of counsel judged by practice/expectations of legal community)
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) (duty to investigate mitigating evidence and how to assess counsel’s investigation)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause limits on testimonial out-of-court statements)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (no broad forensic-evidence exception to Crawford)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011) (Confrontation Clause and surrogate testimony)
Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (2012) (analysis of primary-purpose test and confrontation issues)
State v. Pandeli, 200 Ariz. 365 (2001) (earlier appeal affirming conviction and sentence)
State v. Pandeli, 215 Ariz. 514 (2007) (Pandeli IV —affirming death sentence after resentencing)
State v. Goudeau, 239 Ariz. 421 (2016) (due process and expert testimony weight/ confrontation commentary)
State v. Medina, 232 Ariz. 391 (2013) (autopsy reports can be nontestimonial depending on purpose)
State v. Joseph, 230 Ariz. 296 (2012) (permitting testifying examiner to rely on non-testifying examiner’s report when offering own conclusions)