Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 176

OCTOBER  TERM,  2009	 

15 

Per  Curiam 

WONG,  WARDEN  v.  BELMONTES 

on	  petition  for  writ  of  certiorari  to  the  united 
states court of appeals for the ninth circuit 

No. 08–1263.  Decided November 16, 2009 

Respondent  Belmontes  was  convicted  of  murder  and  sentenced  to  death 
in a California court.  Unsuccessful on direct appeal and state collateral 
review,  he  sought  federal  habeas  relief,  claiming  that  his  counsel  was 
constitutionally  ineffective  for  failing  to  investigate  and  present  sufﬁ­
cient  mitigating  evidence  at  the  trial’s  sentencing  phase.  The  District 
Court denied relief, concluding that Belmontes’ counsel had been ineffec­
tive but that Belmontes could not establish prejudice under Strickland 
v.  Washington,  466  U. S.  668.  The  Ninth  Circuit  reversed,  agreeing 
that counsel’s  performance was defective  but disagreeing with  the Dis­
trict Court’s prejudice ruling. 

Held:  The  Ninth  Circuit  erred  in  concluding  that  Belmontes  was  preju­
diced  by  his  counsel’s  alleged  deﬁcient  performance  during  sentencing. 
To  establish  prejudice,  Belmontes  must  show  a  reasonable  probability 
that  (1)  a  competent  attorney,  aware  of  the  available  mitigating  evi­
dence, would have introduced it at sentencing, and (2) had the jury been 
confronted with this mitigating evidence, there is a reasonable probabil­
ity that it would have returned with a different sentence.  In evaluating 
this second question, it is necessary to consider all the relevant evidence 
that the jury would have had before it—not just the mitigation evidence 
that  could  have  been  presented  but  also  the  rebuttal  evidence  that  al­
most certainly would have come with it.  Here, the additional evidence 
that the Ninth Circuit concluded should have been introduced was either 
cumulative of the substantial mitigation evidence already introduced or 
would  have  opened  the  door  to  powerful  rebuttal  evidence  that  Bel­
montes  was  responsible  for  not  one  but  two  murders.  Belmontes  can­
not demonstrate a reasonable probability that, had it been presented all 
of this evidence, the jury would have returned with a different sentence. 

Certiorari granted; 529 F. 3d 834, reversed and remanded. 

Per Curiam. 
In  1981,  in  the  course  of  a  burglary,  Fernando  Belmontes 
bludgeoned  Steacy  McConnell  to  death,  striking  her  in  the 
head  15  to  20  times  with  a  steel  dumbbell  bar.  See  People 
v.  Belmontes, 45 Cal. 3d 744, 759–761, 755 P. 2d 310, 315–316