N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JAM ES H. HAIR STON,

Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt, v. AL R AM IREZ, W a

rde n , R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . No. 11-99012 D.C . No. 1:00-c v-00303-B LW M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ida

ho B . Ly nn W inm ill, C hie f Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 20, 2018 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GR

AB E R , R AW L INSON, and B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s. Jam e s Ha irston wa s c onvic te d in Ida ho of first de gre e m

urde r an d robbe ry and se nte nc e d to de at

h. Following sta

te post-c onvic tion proc e e dings, Ha irston file d a fe de ra l pe tition for ha

b e a s c orpus c ha lle nging his c onvic tions a nd se nte nc e 

# F IL ED DEC 24 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).on se ve ra l grounds, inc luding ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c o unse l (“ IAC ” ). The distric t c o urt dismisse d his pe tition, c onc luding tha t, to thee xte nt Ha irston wa s c la im ing tha

t his trial c ounse l wa s ine ffe c tive in inve stiga ting a nd pre se nting m itiga tion e vide n c e , tha

t c la im wa s “ proc e dura lly de fa u lte d” be c a

use it wa s not ra ise d in sta

te c o urt. The distric t c ourt issue d a C e rtific at e of Appe a la

bility for se ve ra l of the dism isse d c la im s, inc luding them itiga tion IAC c l a im . While Ha i rston’ s a

ppe a l wa s pe nding, theSupre m e C ourt de c i de d Martine z v . Ry an , 566 U.S. 1 (2012), which he ld tha t “ [i] na de quate a ssista

nc e of c ounse l at initia l-re vie w c olla

te ra l proc e e dings m ay

e sta blish c a use for [e xc u sing] a prisone r’ s proc e dura l de fa u lt of a c la im

of ine ffe c t ive a s sista

nc e at tria l.” Id. at 9. At the State ’ s re que s t, we orde re d “ a lim i te d re m and for re c o nside rat ion” of the m itiga tion IAC c la im

“ in light of Martine

z .” On re m and, the distric t c o urt issue d a de c ision a nd orde r c onc l uding tha

t Ha irston did not a

lle ge a c la im of ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of tria l c o unse l in inve stiga ting mitiga

t ion e vide nc e , re nde ring Martine z ina p plic a ble . The distric t c ourt de nie d a C e rtific ate of Appe a l a

bility on this issue . W e e xpa nde d the origina l C e rtific ate of Appe a la bility to inc lude whe the r the distric t c o urt e rre d in “ d e ny ing re lie f on the Martine z lim ite d re m and.” W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . §§ 1291 a n d 2253, a

n d our re vie w is denov o . Murray v . Sc hriro , 745 F.3d 984, 996 (9th C ir. 2014). 2W e c onc lude tha t Ha irston ha s suffic ie ntly a l le ge d a c la i m

of ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of tria l c o unse l in inve stiga ting a nd pre se nting mitiga

tion e vide n c e at se nte nc ing. Se e

, e .g. , Zic hk

o v . Idaho , 247 F.3d 1015, 1020–21 (9th C ir. 2001); Se lam v . W

arm Springs Tribal C

orr. Fac ility , 134 F.3d 948, 952 (9th C i r. 1998). Ha irston’ s ha

be a s pe tition c la im s tha

t he wa s “ de nie d . . . e ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l unde r the Sixth Am e ndm e nt,” it re fe re nc e s his trial c ounse l’ s duty to

“ c o nduc t a c om

ple te an d thorough inve stiga tion into [his] ba c k ground,” and it a lle ge s fa c t s tha

t would ha

ve be e n unc ove re d “ ha d suc h a m itiga tion inve s tiga

tion be e n c o nduc te d .” M ore ove r, throughout the se proc e e dings— at le a st until the la st round of brie fing be fore the distric t c ourt— the State itse lf ha s a c knowle dge d Ha irston’ s m itiga tion IAC c la im . In the origina l proc e e dings be fore the distric t c ourt, the Stat e re c o gniz e d Ha irston’ s c l a im tha t his “ tria l c ounse l’ s m itiga tion inve stiga

tion wa s ina de quate ” an d proc e e de d to a rgue the m e rits of tha

t c la im . And in this c ourt, the State re que ste d a

lim ite d re m and for the distric t c ourt to c onside r in the first insta nc e whe the r Ha irston “ c an show c a use unde r Martine

z ” for e xc using proc e d ura l de fa ult on tha t c la im . The State ha s thus wa ive d a ny argum e nt tha

t Martine z is ina pplic a b l e due to a

ple a ding de fic ie nc y

in Ha irston’ s ha

be a s pe tition. Se e , e .g. , W ood v . Mily ard, 566 U.S. 463, 473–74 (2012); Vang v . N e v ada , 329 3F.3d 1069, 1072–73 (9th C i r. 2003); s e ealso B uc k v . Dav i s , 137 S. C t. 759, 780 (2017). W e the re fore va c ate the distric t c o urt’ s de c i sion a

nd orde r, and re m and for the d istric t c o urt to a

p p ly Martine

z in the first insta

nc e to Ha i rston’ s c l a im

tha t his tria l c ounse l wa s ine ffe c tive in inve stiga ting a nd pre se nting mitiga

tion e vide nc e at se nte nc ing. In light of our disposition, we de c line to re a c h Ha irston’ s othe r argum e nts a

t this time . This pa

ne l will re ta in a

ny future a ppe a ls in this c a se , a

nd the p artie s ne e d not re pe at brie fing on theothe r issue s e xc e pt a s ne c e ssa ry to provide any

a dditional fa c tua l or le ga l de ve lopm e nts. VACAT E D and RE M ANDE D . C osts on a ppe a l a warde d to Pe titione rAppe l la nt.

4