Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_92-cv-05471/USCOURTS-caed-1_92-cv-05471-10/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 Supplemental

Briefing of 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. The request was denied on

the bases presented by Sanders, that 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. Additional briefing was requested on questions raised by

information revealed at the telephonic case management conference held May 9,

2007, and on whether the bifurcation order should be vacated. The order

bifurcating the evidentairy hearing into two stages will remain in effect. 

There is a question whether Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. ___, 127 S. Ct.

Case 1:92-cv-05471-JLT Document 208 Filed 06/13/07 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

ODenyReconSnd 2

1933 (May 14, 2007), changes the conclusion of the Ninth Circuit on remand

regarding the finding of deficient performance in Hoover’s decision not to

investigate mitigating evidence. See Sanders v. Brown, 171 Fed. Appx. 588, 593-94

(9th Cir. 2006). Landrigan held that it was not an unreasonable determination for

the state court to find there could be no prejudice from counsel’s failure to

investigate mitigation where the defendant refused to allow the presentation of

mitigating evidence. Landrigan, 127 S. Ct. at 1941-42.

 Landrigan observes that neither Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003), nor

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), addresses the situation where a

client interferes with counsel’s efforts to present mitigation, and even the case of

Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374, 381 (2005), involved a defendant who refused to

assist in the development of mitigation, but who did not inform the trial court

that he did not want mitigation presented. Landrigan, 127 S. Ct. at 1942. 

Conversely, Landrigan told both trial counsel and the court that he did not want

mitigation evidence presented, and he actively interfered when counsel

attempted to make a proffer of possible witness testimony. The facts in Sanders’

case fall between the situations in Landrigan and Rompilla - he did not actively

interfere (but he did not have to since Hoover did not present any mitigating

evidence), and he did tell the trial court that he did not want mitigation

presented.

Sanders’ assertion that trial counsel has absolute control over the decision

whether to present mitigation is not supported by the cases which discuss a

defendant’s objection to mitigation. Trial counsel has not been granted absolute

discretion in whether to investigate or present such evidence, but it has been

acknowledged that a defendant has the ability to foreclose certain avenues of

investigation, Silva v. Woodford, 279 F.3d 825 (9th Cir. 2002), and that a client’s

Case 1:92-cv-05471-JLT Document 208 Filed 06/13/07 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

ODenyReconSnd 3

wishes regarding the presentation of mitigation are not to be ignored entirely. 

Campbell v. Kincheloe, 829 F.2d 1453, 1463 (9th Cir. 1987); Williams v. Woodford, 384

F.3d 567, 622 (9th Cir. 2004).

Landrigan presents the following question to be answered based on the

facts developed at the first stage of the evidentiary hearing: Was trial counsel’s

decision not to investigate mitigation evidence deficient performance, or was it

reasonable in light of Sanders’ opposition to presenting a penalty defense? This

question will be addressed at the first stage of the evidentiary hearing along with

whether Sanders would have changed his mind about presenting a penalty

defense had Hoover investigated and discussed the potential effect of mitigation

with him, and whether Hoover should have, or could have, presented mitigation

in spite of Sanders’ objections.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 12, 2007 

 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

United States District Judge

Case 1:92-cv-05471-JLT Document 208 Filed 06/13/07 Page 3 of 3