Opinion ID: 4535848
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Claim 4—Martinez

Text: Smith’s federal habeas petition asserts that his second penalty-phase lawyers were ineffective for failing to investigate, develop, or present mitigation evidence during the second penalty phase. Smith exhausted this claim in state court, but the Nevada Supreme Court concluded that it had been procedurally defaulted. The claim was first presented in Smith’s second habeas petition and the state supreme court ruled it was untimely pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.726(1), and successive pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.810(2). Smith’s federal petition argued that the procedural default of this claim should be excused pursuant to the test set forth in Martinez, 566 U.S. at 10–17. Martinez allows the procedural default of a claim to be excused under specific circumstances. Id. at 17. To show cause for excusing a procedural default, Martinez requires that a petitioner show that the state system in which he initially brought his IAC claim required that the claim be raised in initial-review collateral proceedings, and that the state did not permit the petitioner to raise the claim on direct appeal. Runningeagle, 825 F.3d at 973. A petitioner must further show that the attorney who represented him in state post-conviction proceedings performed deficiently and thereby prejudiced his case under the standard set out in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Runningeagle, 825 F.3d at 973. 20 SMITH V. BAKER In support of his federal petition, Smith argued that his lawyers at the first state post-conviction review proceeding were ineffective because they failed to raise an IAC-by-trialcounsel claim. Smith highlighted numerous facts available to trial counsel that he considered to be evidence of mental illness and argued that his penalty-phase counsel should have raised evidence of mental illness in mitigation. Among other things, Smith contended that his counsel should have argued that he engaged in numerous fraudulent real estate deals over the years leading up to the murders, that he had an outburst during his guilt phase testimony where he threw newspaper articles at the jury, and that he had insisted on testifying at the trial even though his explanation of the circumstances surrounding the murders was obviously implausible. Smith’s counsel retained two mental health experts and submitted their declarations in support of his federal petition. One expert opined that Smith exhibited a “delusional disorder of the grandiose type” since early adulthood. This expert opined that individuals with delusional disorder “cannot escape their delusions or acting on the delusions,” and that the letter Smith left at the crime scene indicating that intruders murdered his wife and step-daughters was evidence of this, as was Smith’s persistence in relating his version of events to the jury despite his intelligence and despite the patent unbelievability of his story. The other expert’s declaration agreed that Smith suffers from grandiose delusions, and observed, “Smith suffers from clinically significant psychiatric difficulties . . . far predat[ing] the above described crimes for which he has been convicted and sentenced[,] and [] these psychiatric difficulties have had and continue to have a significant impact on Mr. Smith’s ability to function in important areas of his life.” This expert explained that Smith’s behavior “reflect[s] mental health SMITH V. BAKER 21 problems and distorted thinking,” and that when the expert met with Smith, he “evidence[d] specific paranoid and grandiose delusions.” Smith submitted to psychometric testing for a pre-guilt phase competency interview in 1992, and that evaluation was filed in support of his federal habeas petition. The competency assessment concluded that Smith was competent to stand trial and that Smith did not suffer from any acute or Axis I mental disorders, although it noted that he suffered from a mixed personality disorder and displayed antisocial behavior, grandiosity, and histrionic features during the competency interview. The federal district court considered this evidence and discussed it in an order concluding that Smith’s IAC claim was procedurally barred by Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.726, Nevada’s timeliness rule, because Smith did not assert this claim until he returned to state court to file his exhaustion petition. The district court also determined that Smith failed to show that habeas counsel provided ineffective assistance for purposes of satisfying the cause and prejudice components of Martinez because, even considering the new evidence relating to Smith’s mental health, Smith did not show a reasonable probability that there would have been a more favorable outcome at the penalty phase of his trial. On appeal, Smith argues that the record establishes cause and prejudice to excuse the procedural default of this IAC claim, and further argues that the district court erred by failing to grant an evidentiary hearing before denying it. “A claim is procedurally defaulted if it was rejected by the state courts based on ‘independent’ and ‘adequate’ state procedural grounds.” Rodney, 916 F.3d at 1259 (citing Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729–32 (1991)). Because the Nevada Supreme Court rejected Claim Four as untimely and 22 SMITH V. BAKER successive pursuant to state law, we may not review it unless Smith demonstrates cause to excuse the default and actual prejudice resulting from a violation of federal law. See id. Specifically, Smith must show:
counsel” was a “substantial” claim; (2) the “cause” consisted of there being “no counsel” or only “ineffective” counsel during the state collateral review proceeding; (3) the state collateral review proceeding was the “initial” review proceeding in respect to the “ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim”; and (4) state law requires that an “ineffective assistance of trial counsel [claim] . . . be raised in an initial-review collateral proceeding. Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 413, 423 (2013) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Martinez, 566 U.S. at 12–22). We first address Smith’s contention that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing. See Tapia v. Roe, 189 F.3d 1052, 1058 (9th Cir. 1999) (reviewing a district court’s refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing for abuse of discretion). Smith must allege a colorable claim for relief on his IAC claim in order to obtain a remand for an evidentiary hearing. West v. Ryan, 608 F.3d 477, 485 (9th Cir. 2010). The district court allowed Smith to submit the mental health declarations his lawyers obtained in 2007 and the court explicitly considered this extra-record evidence in its order dismissing Smith’s Martinez claim.1 1 Cf. Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181–82 (2011). SMITH V. BAKER 23 Smith fails to demonstrate what additional factual development would be possible at an evidentiary hearing. He argues that his experts would be allowed to further explain their opinions at a hearing, but they would also be subject to cross examination. Neither of his experts had an opportunity to conduct testing and only one of them interviewed Smith. If an evidentiary hearing were held, the State would be permitted to cross-examine Smith’s experts and introduce expert testimony of its own. Accordingly, we conclude that Smith has not shown that he was prejudiced by the lack of an evidentiary hearing, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the Martinez claim without holding one. Turning to Martinez Step One, Smith must demonstrate that his “underlying ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim is a substantial one, which is to say that the prisoner must demonstrate that the claim has some merit.” Martinez, 566 U.S. at 14. Smith argues that the claim his penalty-phase lawyers were ineffective is “substantial” because trial counsel failed to investigate or present information regarding his history of mental illness. Smith asserts that his lawyers’ penalty-phase investigation consisted solely of interviewing a few family members on the day they were scheduled to testify and presenting brief testimony regarding Smith’s good character. He contends that no effort was taken to investigate mental health issues, and that testimony from mental health experts would have explained his actions. Because no alternate defense theory was aggressively pursued, Smith argues that the failure to provide any explanation for the crimes gave the jury no reason to impose a life sentence. The State responds that introducing Smith’s experts’ declarations at the penalty phase would have been tantamount 24 SMITH V. BAKER to ineffective assistance of counsel because it would have painted Smith as a con man and torpedoed his defense. In the State’s view, the 1992 competency assessment was “both broad and deep.” It was also the only evaluation that included psychometric testing. The State acknowledges the competency assessment showed elevated scales for antisocial behavior and grandiosity with manic tendencies, but stresses that the competency assessment concluded Smith exhibited no acute or Axis I mental disorders and had no serious cognitive or affective psychological disorder. In short, the State argues that Smith was not prejudiced by the failure to present other mental health evidence. The standard for showing a claim is “substantial” is comparable to the standard for granting a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); a petitioner “need show only that ‘jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims . . . .’” Runningeagle, 825 F.3d at 983 n.14 (quoting MillerEl, 537 U.S. at 327). Proving the merits of an IAC claim requires showing that: (1) “counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness . . . under prevailing professional norms”; and (2) “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Rodney, 916 F.3d at 1260 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 694).
With respect to the first Strickland prong, deficient performance is performance that falls “below an objective standard of reasonableness” and is outside of “the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687–88 (quoting McMann v. SMITH V. BAKER 25 Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 771 (1970)). The objective measure of counsel’s performance is determined by looking at the “reasonableness under prevailing professional norms.” Id. at 688. Professional norms are measured at the time of counsel’s actions rather than by reference to modern norms. See Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 196 (2011). This assessment is made “from counsel’s perspective at the time,” so as “to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689. We “defer to a lawyer’s strategic trial choices, [but] those choices must have been made after counsel [ ] conducted reasonable investigations or [made] a reasonable decision that ma[de] particular investigations unnecessary.” Summerlin v. Schriro, 427 F.3d 623, 630 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691). During the April 1996 second penalty hearing, counsel based Smith’s sentencing argument on character evidence very similar to the evidence presented at the first trial, and did not arrange or request a mental health evaluation of Smith. Smith’s first-chair counsel at the second penalty hearing, Donald York Evans, acknowledged in a 2007 declaration filed with Smith’s federal habeas petition that Smith was “an interesting case, psychologically,” and that when he first met Smith, Evans “wanted to do a complete psychological workup on him.” Evans admitted that he “did not press the issue” because Smith declined to submit to testing and Evans “wasn’t confident that [he] would get anything [he] could use from an evaluation anyway.” Evans “suspected [Smith] had schizoid tendencies and a high IQ but that was just [his] guess and [Smith] wouldn’t participate in an evaluation.” State habeas counsel’s 2002 interview of second-chair counsel, Peter LaPorta, was consistent. Asked whether “there [was] anything else that [counsel felt] should have been done for [Smith’s] second penalty phase” LaPorta responded, “[Y]es, 26 SMITH V. BAKER to put it succinctly. I was very uncomfortable with the background information that [had been] developed on the family and the family history, military history, educational history, any psychological history.” We agree with Smith that the performance of his second penalty-phase counsel was deficient. This is not a case in which counsel chose not to pursue mental health mitigation evidence because there were other defense theories to pursue; indeed, the presentation made on Smith’s behalf at the second penalty phase was exceptionally sparse. The transcript reflects only about twenty-five pages of testimony from three family members and three family friends who testified about Smith’s character and his relationship with his family, even though red flags regarding Smith’s mental health were raised in the pre-trial competency assessment and by his behavior before and during trial. It was incumbent upon counsel to investigate Smith’s mental health even though Smith denied mental illness. The record shows that Smith’s lawyers did not conduct an investigation to ascertain the extent of any possible mental impairment, or to determine whether mental health could have been raised as a mitigating factor at sentencing. Counsel concluded that any psychological assessment performed without Smith’s cooperation would be of little or no value, but one of the two expert declarations filed on Smith’s behalf in 2007 was prepared solely based on the expert’s review of the record. If nothing else, a comparable report could have been prepared at the time of the sentencing without Smith’s participation. The applicable American Bar Association (ABA) guidelines made clear that “[t]he investigation for preparation of the sentencing phase . . . should comprise efforts to discover all reasonably available mitigating evidence.” ABA Guidelines 11.4.1(C) (1989). The ABA guidelines further specified that counsel SMITH V. BAKER 27 should collect a medical history (including “mental and physical illness”) and investigate a defendant’s social history in preparation for the penalty phase. Id. 11.4.1(2)(C). On the record before us, we do not hesitate to conclude that the failure to investigate Smith’s mental health history contravened the ABA guidelines. We have said that “strategic choices made after less than complete investigation are reasonable precisely to the extent that reasonable professional judgments support the limitations on investigation.” Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 521 (2003) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690–91). Smith’s counsel had good reason to be concerned about Smith’s mental state yet they acknowledged that they did not try to obtain a psychiatric report, apparently because Smith objected. We do not minimize the difficulty presented by Smith’s failure to cooperate, but Smith had no other viable defense and his inability to recognize that and submit to a mental health evaluation may well have been another indicator of a mental health disorder. The failure to pursue mental health mitigation evidence “ignored pertinent avenues for investigation of which [counsel] should have been aware.” Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30, 40 (2009) (per curiam). The record does not demonstrate that counsel’s failure to investigate was strategic. No alternate mitigation evidence or argument was proffered to the jury, despite what appears to be agreement among Smith’s attorneys that he may have suffered from some sort of mental illness. See Evans v. Lewis, 855 F.2d 631, 637 (9th Cir. 1988) (“Counsel’s failure to investigate [a petitioner’s] mental condition[, despite prior notice,] cannot be construed as a trial tactic.”); see also Hendricks v. Calderon, 70 F.3d 1032, 1043 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[W]here counsel is on notice that his client may be mentally impaired, counsel’s failure to investigate his client’s mental 28 SMITH V. BAKER condition as a mitigating factor in a penalty phase hearing, without a supporting strategic reason, constitutes deficient performance.”). Our concurring colleague concludes that Smith’s counsel’s performance was not deficient, cautioning that counsel’s performance must not be judged with hindsight. Concurrence at 46–47. We do not doubt this rule, but in our view it is the concurrence that misapplies it. By conflating Strickland’s prongs one and two, the concurring opinion decides that it was permissible to forgo a psychological evaluation because, without Smith’s cooperation, his lawyers guessed that a psychological assessment would be of “no value.” Concurrence at 49–51. There is no question that Smith’s failure to cooperate with a psychological evaluation would have hindered any effort to muster persuasive mitigating evidence for the second penalty phase, but this comes into play at Strickland step two, when we consider whether counsel’s deficient performance resulted in prejudice. At step one, we consider whether Smith’s lawyers’ performance fell below an objectively reasonable standard, and that question is largely a function of the choices that were available to counsel. Here, we consider the questions raised by Smith’s pre-trial competency evaluation and by counsel’s own observations of Smith’s behavior; Smith’s persistent failure to recognize the implausibility of his trial testimony; his concerning trial conduct; and the fact that there was almost nothing else to offer in defense of the death penalty. On this record, it was unreasonable to forgo a psychological evaluation merely because Smith had confidence in his own mental health and counsel assumed an assessment would be of little value. Indeed, it is easy to imagine that a defendant’s insistence that he is not ill may be a symptom of mental illness. The out-of-circuit cases the concurring opinion cites SMITH V. BAKER 29 are not to the contrary. See, e.g., Coleman v. Mitchell, 244 F.3d 533, 544–46 (6th Cir. 2001) (distinguishing cases in which the failure to investigate and present mitigating evidence constituted ineffective assistance, because defendant served as co-counsel and instructed counsel to pursue an alternate strategy); Johnston v. Singletary, 162 F.3d 630, 642 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (concluding that counsel’s decision to forgo psychiatric testimony was strategic where defendant refused to cooperate and his medical records contained substantial data regarding his criminal history). We conclude that Smith satisfied his burden of demonstrating a “substantial” argument that his second penalty-phase counsel’s performance was deficient.
The second Strickland prong requires that Smith show “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. The State argues that even if Smith had presented evidence to the jury showing he suffered from grandiose delusions as a result of his mixed personality disorder, this mitigation evidence would have paled in comparison to his vicious attack on his wife and step-daughters. The Supreme Court has cautioned that this type of evidence “is [] by no means clearly mitigating, as the jury might have concluded that [the defendant] was simply beyond rehabilitation.” Cullen, 563 U.S. at 201. Moreover, in this case, testimony from a mental health expert would have opened the door to rebuttal from a State expert witness. See id. In light of the extraordinarily brutal nature of the murders, Smith has not shown that reasonable jurists would 30 SMITH V. BAKER debate whether the result of Smith’s proceeding would have been different if mitigation evidence had been pursued. Our conclusion on this point is heavily influenced by Smith’s failure to submit to a psychiatric evaluation at the time of the penalty phase, and by the fact that only limited evaluations could have been prepared without Smith’s cooperation. Without the ability to conduct psychometric testing and prepare detailed in-depth personal interviews with Smith, any expert’s opinion would have been compromised and necessarily vulnerable to cross examination. To support his federal petition, Smith relies on the opinions of Dr. Paula Lundberg-Love and Dr. Richard Dudley to argue that counsel failed to investigate, develop, and present mitigating mental health evidence. These experts connected Smith’s “delusional thinking” with his long history of get-rich-quick schemes and fraudulent dealings. For example, Dr. Lundberg-Love attributed Smith’s extensive history of fraudulent schemes to his delusions and “inflated sense of self-worth.” She also juxtaposed Smith’s numerous fraudulent schemes, ranging from real estate deals to gemstone trading to check fraud, with his incredulous protestations of innocence and claims that he had been set up at every turn. Dr. Lundberg-Love noted that despite Smith’s obviously precarious financial situation, he negotiated a contract for the home in which the murders took place. Among her conclusions, Dr. Lundberg-Love determined that Smith had “persistent false beliefs” relating to these schemes, and that he had “exclusive insight or interpretation[s] of the facts that will free him from his predicament.” Dr. LundbergLove concluded that Smith’s schemes and plans, in light of the clear facts that he “never had sufficient resources to SMITH V. BAKER 31 execute” them, “support[] the diagnosis of delusional disorder.” Dr. Dudley, who examined Smith in prison, reached similar conclusions. Dr. Dudley explained that, when he met Smith, “it was clear that he is extremely bright,” but he “evidenced both a level of paranoid thinking and grandiosity that compromised his . . . decision-making capabilities and judgment.” He determined that Smith’s “grandiosity” included “pursuing big real estate deals while he had no assets, and he apparently did not succeed in any legitimate deals.” Like Dr. Lundberg-Love, Dr. Dudley connected Smith’s grandiose thinking to his decision to move his family into a mansion “despite the fact that his checking account had been closed for too many overdrafts, and despite him not having any means to pay the pending mortgage debt against the house.” Contrary to Smith’s protestations that the information related to his mental health has “long [been] recognized as mitigating,” this evidence is not “clearly mitigating.” First, though it demonstrates Smith’s grandiosity, it focuses extensively on Smith’s unlawful schemes. For example, in one fraud detailed in Dr. Lundberg-Love’s report, Smith offered handyman and remodeling services for a fee to homeowners, then disappeared after receiving money for the services. When confronted, Smith represented to the homeowners that “the freight lines stole the cabinets he ordered, and he [had to] travel[] to try to obtain the cabinets.” Ultimately, Smith never returned to finish the remodel, and the homeowners lost the money they entrusted to Smith. In another scheme, Smith and his brother, Harold, “fronted money to homeowners in foreclosure,” and, in return, “required that the homeowners provide . . . their deed as 32 SMITH V. BAKER security.” Smith and his brother then pocketed the homeowners’ mortgage payments, never applied the payments to the mortgage, and sold the property to third parties. Dr. Lundberg-Love’s and Dr. Dudley’s reports detailed other schemes in which Smith attempted to obtain loans on real property with forged deeds, attempted to sell property with forged deeds, and attempted to trade “valuable” amethysts (which were of little value) for real estate in Texas. Thus, while there is a chance the evidence “may have served to evoke sympathy for Smith or cast his culpability for the murders in a different light,” there is an equal chance the jury would have decided that this evidence confirmed that Smith was a habitual fraudster who “was simply beyond rehabilitation.” Cullen, 563 U.S. at 201. The experts focused on Smith’s delusional protestations of innocence, but these statements were not “clearly mitigating” because they underscored that Smith was willing to relate utterly implausible tales, as he did before the jury at trial. For example, Dr. Lundberg-Love attested, “In this case Mr. Smith’s note indicated several intruders murdered his wife and stepchildren and that he killed one of the intruders. The only bodies found were those of his wife and stepchildren. As unbelievable as this recitation appeared, Mr. Smith persisted in relating these facts to the jury. . . . His delusional disorder compelled him to go forward as he did in his testimony, even though part of his story was contradicted by reality.” We cannot conclude there is a reasonable probability that the expert declarations, prepared with little or no cooperation from Smith, and without the benefit of thorough testing and an opportunity for full evaluation, would have changed the outcome of Smith’s penalty phase. See id. at 202. SMITH V. BAKER 33 Smith also argues that counsel spent only a few minutes preparing his mitigation witnesses prior to their testimony. But Smith glosses over the fact that Evans traveled to Los Angeles prior to trial and attempted to meet with Smith’s brother. Smith’s brother did not appear at the meeting and later refused to meet with Evans. Additionally, Smith’s brother, mother, and father “were scheduled to testify at the penalty hearing, but on the day of their scheduled testimony,” they did not appear. After a number of “frantic calls to the family, they appeared at court the next morning.” As a result, Evans “did not get to meet with [Smith’s] mom and dad until just before they testified.” Finally, Smith fails to identify any additional mitigation evidence that could or would have been provided by family members if additional time had been invested. Because Smith did not meet his burden at Strickland Step Two, the district court did not err by ruling that Smith’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim was procedurally defaulted.