Legal Document

130 S. Ct. 841 (2010) Holly WOOD, Petitioner, v. Richard F. ALLEN, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, et al. No. 08-9156. Supreme Court United States. Argued November 4, 2009. Decided January 20, 2010. *844 Kerry A. Scanlon, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Corey L. Maze, Solicitor General, Montgomery, AL, Respondents. Alan David O. Bickart, Robert Grass, Karen R. Robinson, Dionne Fraser, Kaye Scholer LLP, Brady W. Mills, Troutman Sanders Troy King, Attorney Henry M. Johnson, Assistant *845 Justice SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion Court. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act 1996 contains two provisions governing federal-court review state-court factual findings. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2), a federal court may not grant state prisoner's application writ habeas corpus based on claim already adjudicated merits in unless that adjudication "resulted decision was an unreasonable determination facts light evidence presented State proceeding." 2254(e)(1), "a issue made by shall be presumed to correct," petitioner "shall have burden rebutting presumption correctness clear convincing evidence." In this case, petitioner, capital defendant, challenges key finding denied his postconviction relief: attorneys' failure pursue present mitigating borderline mental retardation strategic rather than negligent omission. Petitioner argues court's under 2254(d)(2) that, denying petition, Appeals Eleventh Circuit erroneously conflated standard with which contends is applicable cases, such as one, involving separate evidentiary hearing. We granted certiorari address relationship between §§ (e)(1). conclude, however, reasonable even petitioner's reading therefore we need provision's 2254(e)(1). Accordingly, affirm judgment basis. I 1993, Wood broke into home ex-girlfriend shot her head face she lay bed. victim pronounced dead arrival at hospital. Charged murder during first-degree burglary, represented trial three court-appointed attorneys: Cary Dozier Frank Ralph, both whom had significant experience, Kenneth Trotter, who been admitted bar five months time he appointed. jury convicted guilt phase recommended death sentence penalty vote 10 2. After sentencing hearing, judge imposed penalty. Criminal affirmed Wood's conviction sentence, Ex parte Wood, 715 So. 2d 812 (1996), did Court, State, 819 (1998). This certiorari. Alabama, 525 U.S. 1042, 119 594, 142 Ed. 536 petitioned relief Rule Procedure 32 (2009), arguing, among other things, mentally retarded eligible penalty, counsel were ineffective Strickland 466 668, 104 2052, 80 674 (1984), because they failed investigate deficiencies trial. App. Pet. Cert. 198a-202a, 207a-210a, 213a-216a, 220a-221a, 225a. held hearings claims. On appeal, remanded *846 further consideration Atkins Virginia, 304, 122 2242, 153 335 (2002), Eighth Amendment prohibits execution retarded. 891 398 (2003). remand, conducted third hearing once again relief. As retardation, found while suggested "probably does exhibit significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning," show "that has or substantial deficits adaptive functioning." 236a-237a. also rejected factually related assistance counsel, concluding establish counsel's performance deficient any deficiency prejudiced defense. Id., 257a-275a. first alleged retardation. observed requested Dr. Karl Kirkland conduct evaluation, "thoroughly reviewed Kirkland's report," "determined nothing report merited investigation." 264a, 271a. additionally appeared limited their possession, "calling testify best interest." 271a-272a. concluded these decisions thus performed deficiently. Ibid. there "no probability" different outcome developed court. 273a. affirmed, 589-610, certiorari, id., 4. then filed petition 2254. District all claims save one: mitigation constituted counsel. 465 Supp. 1211, 1239-1245 (M.D.Ala.2006). According court, "nothing record remotely support let stage know about condition." 1242. Ralph Dozier, noted, placed inexperienced Trotter charge phase. At testified seen references functioning but recall considering whether issue. unsuccessfully attempted subpoena school records speaking teachers. written attorney Southern Poverty Law Center explaining "`stressed out over case [didn't] anyone discuss including attorneys.'" 1241. Shortly before began, told would request psychological evaluation judge's though come too late considered jury. 1241-1242. Based evidence, introduce [was] *847 record." Having determinations, holdings contrary "an law Strickland." 1245. ordered either resentence life without parole new divided opinion, reversed 542 F.3d 1281 (2008). majority began review: "Section 2254(d) permits only where courts' (1) `contrary to, involved of, clearly established Federal law, determined States,' (2) `based proceeding.'" 1285 (quoting 2254(d)(1)-(2)). A "`determination correct,'" explained, "`shall evidence.'" 2254(e)(1)). "Thus," stated, "`review findings fact more deferential erroneous review.'" rejection ineffective-assistance-of-counsel neither nor facts. With respect facts, supported health "At minimum," "Wood much less make decisions." 1304, n. 23. agreed legal conclusion reasonable. silent created exercised sound professional judgment, ample reasons, information obtained. These reasons included unfavorable report, details 19 earlier arrests previous attempt another ex-girlfriend, well notwithstanding deficiencies, high level functioning. 1304-1306. added investigation preceding sufficient permit them reasoned decision, crediting inter alia, employed investigator sought from family members themselves met guidance defense organizations. 1307-1308. accepted "objectively unreasonable" prejudice deficiencies. 1309, 1314. dissent, implicitly question part parcel reasonable, "[n]o could possibly *848 adequately available 1316. "the weight demonstrates overwhelmed attorney," unassisted senior "realized late"only it judge, jury"what reasonably prepared known: impairments served deserved so properly sentencing." 1320. dissent probability presented, culpable result diminished abilities. 1322-1325. unreasonable. F.3d, 1326. resolve questions raised petition. First, Courts Appeals: whether, order satisfy must "unreasonable," 2254(e)(1) requires rebut correct evidence.[1] "strategic decision" 556 ___, 129 2389, 173 1291 (2009). additional declined Neither asked us resolution "contrary law" 2254(d)(1) Strickland. II Notwithstanding statements *849 (e)(1) cases squarely issue, see Brief 37-38; Respondents 28-29, explicitly left open applies every presenting challenge Rice Collins, 546 333, 339, 126 969, 163 824 (2006). parties amici offered variety ways read provisions.[2] Although how fit together, find reach question, our view reasonableness turn interpretive difference regarding provisions. For purposes, assume sake argument should reviewed, urges, conclude proceedings. do decide arguably set contexts, "[t]he term `unreasonable' no doubt difficult define." Williams Taylor, 529 362, 410, 120 1495, 146 389 (2000). It suffices say, merely reached instance. Cf. 411, 1495. Rice, example, assumed, arguendo, applied, U.S., Ninth Circuit's noted if "[r]easonable minds reviewing might disagree" "on suffice supersede ... determination." 341-342, 969. demonstrated report. 12, 174, 210, 283. him investigation, recollection contemporaneous letters wrote noting independent evaluations said needed. 283, 343, 345. intend 12. can fairly *850 mere oversight neglect instead deliberate focus defenses. Arguing effect unreasonable, calls attention Dozier's testimony proceedings problems aware it, 169; decided 168, 171; designated proceedings, 270-271. turn, 288. observes phase, use former necessarily carry latter. 324. notes obtain after belief continuance investigate. 285, 343-346. Finally, emphasizes thought important final 88. Most highlights, speaks reasonablea reach. See Part II-B, infra. plausibly inconsistent demonstrate unreasonable.[3] Reviewing agree debatable, inquire contained *851 possessed supra, reason, erred holding contrary. B deciding evidence. Without contends, exercise "fairly included" Court's 14.1(a). Whether itself 2254(d)(1). 342, 969 ("The errs determining applying law"). latter "related one petitione[r] perhaps complementary presented," are "not therein." Yee Escondido, 503 519, 537, 112 1522, 118 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). true discussed misapplication 22-27. But [petitioner] text [his] bring us. 14.1(a) subsidiary review." Izumi Seimitsu Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha Philips Corp., 510 27, 31, 5, 114 425, 396 (1993) (per curiam). unreasonably applied rejecting merits. * Because them, leave day when determinations 2254(d)(2). hold simply Circuit. ordered. STEVENS, KENNEDY joins, dissenting. There world admissible experienced perfectly sensible call witness. That harm good. follow single forgo investigating *852 powerful contrary, draw inattention neglect. antithesis "strategic" choice, reverse Appeals. Assuming decline consider (1984) ante, 850-851, product strategy still 849-851, reject borne strategy. And purposes 2254(d)(2).[1] Wiggins Smith, 539 510, 526-527, 123 2527, 156 471 (2003) (observing `strategic decision' courts respondents invoke justify pursuit resembles post hoc rationalization accurate description deliberations prior sentencing"); Carr Schofield, 364 1246, 1264 (C.A.11 2004) (identifying "whether tactical strategic" (citing Horton Zant, 941 F.2d 1449, 1462 1991)));[2]Berryman Morton, 100 1089, 1095 (C.A.3 1996) (same). words, correctly concludes supports further, fails engage requisite second question: Does one? answer unequivocally no. Before trial, learned "IQ range 327, "functioning, most," range, 328. "reading 3rd grade level." 327. His special education teacher classified "educable retarded" local system. 403. short, type recognize "inherently mitigating," Tennard Dretke, 274, 287, 124 2562, 159 384 (2004).[3] *853 Despite value ever jury." 1281, 1314 2008) (Barkett, J., concurring part, dissenting part). Counsel existed, 1318, chose beyond conclusions outlined view, "counsel into" 850. "decision," albeit hasty regrettably matter fact. cannot characterized conscious choice legitimate rational alternatives. deliberation happenstance, inattention, Wiggins, 526, 2527 (concluding "failure thoroughly resulted judgment"); Strickland, 690-691, 2052. Moreover, cursory investigation" "automatically justif[y] strategy." 527, 2527. afford deference decisions, apply some just that: strategic. lawyers' duty thorough possible Porter McCollum, 558 447, 452-53, ___ L.Ed.2d (2009) curiam); Rompilla Beard, 545 374, 387, 125 2456, 162 360 (2005); 522-523, 2527; 396, (2000); 688, unconsidered fail discharge conceivable forgoing ethical obligations circumstances futile waste valuable time. 691, 2052 (recognizing abandon entitled "when defendant given reason believe pursuing certain investigations fruitless harmful"). suggest conclusion.[4] *854 1321-1322 recognizes pointed primary responsibility believed value, 849-850. meager experience lawyer appointed represent 261, knew order.[5] my signaled obviously highly persuasive mind so. share colleague below attorneys preoccupied concerns permissible otherwise proceeding" within meaning 2254(d)(2).[6] respectfully dissent. NOTES [1] See, e.g., 1285, 23 (decision below); Taylor Maddox, 366 992, 999-1000(CA9), cert. denied, 543 1038, 809, 160 605 (2004) (where "based entirely record," reviews those extrinsic record, applies); Lambert Blackwell, 387 235 ("§ 2254(d)(2)'s turns totality `evidence proceeding,' contemplates individual wholly outside record"); Trussell Bowersox, 447 588, 591 (C.A.8 2006) (federal "if `an presumptively lacks support"), 549 1034, 127 583, 166 434 (2006); Ben-Yisrayl Buss, 540 542, (C.A.7 (§ satisfied showing, "rests upon lies against evidence" "is, definition, inadequately arbitrary objectively omitted)). [2] seeks Section comes play, according record. 38-39. respondents, solely 35-37. Respondents' offer variations, although fashion Legal Foundation Amicus Curiae 10-14; Indiana Amici 2, 12-18. [3] suggests justification doing Post, 852-854 (opinion joined KENNEDY, J.). interpretation conflates post, 852, 1. expressing ultimate note grounds decision. particular, led rebuttal capabilities through extensive criminal history, extraordinarily amount actually Counsel's successfully thwarted prosecutor's efforts admit murdered strikingly similar subsequent successful murder. 23-24. undercut defense's family, suggesting educational difficulties. 1305-1306. avenues described being "happenstance, neglect," 853. explains: "Whether 2254(d)(1)." Ante, 851. particular Indeed, point settled: "`The attorney's actions ...'" Fotopoulos Secretary, Dept. 516 1229, 1233 Provenzano Singletary, 148 1327, 1330 1998)); Lamarca 568 929, 938 2009) Thus, quite understandable framed arising fall class individuals identified constitutionally imposed, reality [the defendant] `borderline retarded,' influenc[e] jury's appraisal moral culpability." 398, [4] fully, 850, 3. My concern latter, necessary prerequisite choices what go 522, (explaining "counsel's uncover voluminous justified [defendant's] voluntary confessions, `fulfill[ed] obligation defendant's background'" Williams, 1495)). [5] commenced, sent co-counsel imploring "we evaluationeven means asking postponement hearing." 343 (letter Dozier); 345 Ralph). procure speak teachers "anything able used factor," 267 (testimony Trotter), up issued never spoke length teachers, 267-268. Notably, least willing behalf 401-421 Maddox Penn). [6] same pierce 2254(e)(1)'s proceed 849,

Classification Label: 0