Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_92-cv-05471/USCOURTS-caed-1_92-cv-05471-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD L. SANDERS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

ROBERT L. AYERS, JR., Warden )

of San Quentin State Prison, )

)

Respondent. )

)

Case No. CIV. F-92-5471-LJO-P

DEATH PENALTY CASE

Order Regarding May 2, 2007,

Denial of Petitioner’s Motion for

Reconsideration 

Petitioner Ronald L. Sanders (“Sanders”) filed a motion to reconsider this

Court’s order of March 27, 2007, which included a request to reconsider the

division of the evidentiary hearing into two stages. Sanders asserted his request

should be granted because the order misstated the legal standard, appeared to

eliminate part of the remanded claims, and appeared to limit the mitigation

evidence at the first stage without explaining how that evidence would be

handled. The request was denied on the bases presented by Sanders, and the

extent of the evidence and its presentation was clarified in this Court’s order of

May 2, 2007.

A telephonic case management conference was held on May 9, 2007, before

the Honorable Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill, to discuss the scheduling of the

Case 1:92-cv-05471-JLT Document 201 Filed 05/15/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 In a prior order, this Court had indicated that the exhibits in support of 1

Sanders’ state habeas petition were lost during the appeal. Those exhibits have now

been re-lodged by the State. It is apparent from counsel’s disclosure that Sanders’

declaration was not submitted in support of his state habeas petition, but was

submitted to this Court after his return from state exhaustion. It has not yet been

determined whether Sanders’ declaration was returned with the record after the case

was remanded.

OreCM CphIVSnd 2

evidentiary hearing, and an order was issued the same day setting out a schedule

for the events leading up to the hearing, and setting the hearing for October 27-

31, 2008. At the teleconference, counsel for Sanders indicated that Sanders had 

signed a declaration in 2000 in support of the remanded claims which stated (in

pertinant part) that if trial counsel had explained mitigation to him, he would

have agreed to present some evidence at penalty.1

Trial counsel’s declaration stated he only performed a limited investigation

into mitigating evidence because of Sanders’ opposition to presenting such

evidence. Since Sanders’ 2000 declaration states he is now willing to present

some type of penalty defense, what evidence does the State contemplate

submitting which could undermine the validity of Sanders’ current position? 

Although Sanders’ case is controlled by pre-AEDPA law, to what extent, or how,

is this issue affected by the recent United States Supreme Court decision in

Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. ___, 2007 WL 1387923 (May 14, 2007)? 

The Ninth Circuit had Sanders’ 2000 declaration before them on appeal,

but still remanded for fact-finding on whether he would have changed his mind. 

It is assumed that the purpose on remand is to test Sanders’ declaration by crossexamination. Are there any other issues relating to the first stage which require

resolution in light of Sanders’ current position that he would have agreed to

present some mitigation had counsel explained it to him?

Should the order bifurcating the hearing be vacated and the issue of

prejudice (the second stage) be litigated at the same time as any remaining issues

Case 1:92-cv-05471-JLT Document 201 Filed 05/15/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

OreCM CphIVSnd 3

regarding Sanders’ decision regarding presenting mitigation (the first stage)? 

The State shall submit a response to the questions presented in this order

on or before May 25, 2007. Sanders shall file a reply to the State’s response on or

before June 5, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 15, 2007 

 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

United States District Judge

Case 1:92-cv-05471-JLT Document 201 Filed 05/15/07 Page 3 of 3