Legal Document

Cite as: 558 U. S. ____ (2009) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ROBERT WONG, WARDEN v. FERNANDO BELMONTES, JR. ON PETITION FOR WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS NINTH CIRCUIT No. 08–1263. Decided November 16, 2009 PER CURIAM. In 1981, in the course of a burglary, Fernando Belmon tes bludgeoned Steacy McConnell to death, striking her head 15 20 times with steel dumbbell bar. See People Belmontes, 45 Cal. 3d 744, 759–761, 755 P.2d 310, 315–316 (1988). After murder, Belmontes and his accomplices stole McConnell’s stereo, sold it for $100, used money buy beer drugs night. Id., at 764–765, P. 2d, 318–319. was convicted murder sentenced death state court. Unsuccessful on direct appeal collateral review, sought federal habeas relief, which District Court denied. The Ap peals reversed, finding instructional error, but we over turned that decision. Ayers 549 U.S. 7 (2006); see also Brown 544 945 (2005). On remand, Appeals again ruled Bel montes, this time suffered ineffec tive assistance counsel during sentencing phase trial. had previously denied relief ground, performed deficiently under Ninth Circuit precedent, could not establish prejudice Strick land Washington, 466 668 (1984). Calderon, Civ. S–89–0736 DFL JFM (ED Cal., Aug. 15, 2000), App. Pet. Cert. 140a, 179a, 183a. agreed counsel’s performance defi cient, disagreed respect 2 WONG BELMONTES prejudice, determining errors undermined confidence penalty verdict. Ayers, 529 F.3d 834, 859–863, 874 (CA9 2008). We dis agree as grant State’s petition certiorari, reverse. I argues constitutionally ineffective failing investigate present sufficient mitigating evidence To prevail claim, must meet both deficient prongs Strickland, S., 687. show performance, “counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard reasonableness.” 688. light “the variety circumstances faced by defense [and] range legitimate decisions regarding how best represent criminal defendant,” perform ance inquiry necessarily turns “whether reasonable considering all circum stances.” 688–689. At points, “[j]udicial scru tiny be highly deferential.” 689. challenge confronting Belmontes’ lawyer, John Schick, very specific. Substantial indicated committed prior prosecution eager introduce extensive, including eyewitness testimony, own admissions, possession weapon same type ammunition kill victim. Record 2239–2250, 2261; Deposition Exhs. 62, 63, 64 (Sept. 26, 1995). evidence, furthermore, potentially devastating. It would have shown two years before McCon 3 nell’s police found Jerry Howard’s body se cluded area. Howard been killed execution style, bullet back head. authorities suspected eve trial witnesses refused cooperate (Belmontes’ mother begged one testify). therefore believed prove guilty beyond doubt. What prove, even without recalcitrant witnesses, possessed gun Howard. So State offered, accepted, no-contest plea accessory after fact voluntary manslaughter. 2239–2243; 64. But shy about discussing boasting several people he Steven Cartwright informed district attorney confessed murder. A informant told detectives “bragged” stating “mad” because night before, quite [lot] dope wouldn’t share him.” double jeopardy protection set released parole, admitted responsibility counselor California Youth Authority, Charles Sapien. During confinement, “always [one] who shot Howard.” Sapien “had square [Belmontes],” decided level upon release, telling “ ‘wasted’ guy.” 2240; Schick understood gravity aggravating evi dence, built mitigation strategy around overriding need exclude it. evidentiary rules, knew, offered him argument those rules made clear dence come rebuttal if opened door. 4 2256; Rodriguez, 42 730, 791–792, 726 113, 153 (1986); Harris, 28 935, 960–962, 623 240, 254 (1981). thus “grave concerns” that, succeeded ini tially excluding still case swept too broadly. Accordingly, proceed cautiously, struc turing arguments limit possibility. 301, 309–310; supra, 699 (“Restricting testimony respondent’s character what colloquy ensured contrary psychologi cal history, successfully moved exclude, in”). As expected, ready admit phase. arguing should allowed tell jury only being manslaughter—nothing more. 2240–2254. keeping from presenting damaging its chief, client remained risk: court or impeachment 2256. This empty threat. instance, elicited violent per son. objected and, out earshot jury, argued able rebut evidence. 2332–2334. warned “going allow [the prosecution] go into whole background” continued line questioning. 2334. acquiesced, struck testimony. Ibid. 5 Court’s warning reinforced Schick’s understanding tailor carefully preserve success With cautionary note mind, put nine thought advance mitigation, opening door id., 2312–2417. determined spite these efforts, precedent. F. 3d, 862– 863. challenges conclusion, resolve point, cannot prejudice. II “a reason probability unprofessional errors, result proceeding dif ferent.” 694. That showing requires competent attorney, aware available mitigat ing evidence], introduced sentencing,” “that confronted . miti gating there is returned different sentence.” Wiggins Smith, 539 510, 535, 536 (2003). reasonably compe tent lawyer more top already presented. For purposes our analysis, accept conclu sion consider whether presented additional gation evaluating question, necessary relevant pursued path—not just 6 presented, almost certainly 695–696, 700. Thus, rejected capital sentence weighed entire (including presented) against mur der evidence). burden. begin did pre sent substantial. panel addressing record first agreed, recognizing substantial nature evidence” Woodford, 350 861, 907 reiterated point times. 874, 901, 908. All told, stand span days, behalf. number high lighted “terrible” childhood. They testified father alcoholic extremely abusive. grandfather described one-bedroom house where spent much childhood “chicken coop.” do well school; dropped ninth grade. His younger sister died when she 10 months old. And grandmother tragically drowned swimming pool. 2314–2319, 2324–2325, 2344. Family members despite diffi culties, maintained strong relationships grandfather, grandmother, mother, sister. 2317–2318, 2325–2326. friend fered insights close confidant. 2329–2332. called detailed religious conversion while custody acces sory charge. These stories tes’ efforts advising other inmates detention center’s program, illustrate live produc meaningful life prison. working part firefighting crew, detailing rise lowest man team second command. assistant chaplain said use regular prison counseling pro gram handed down sentence. 2379–2384, 2396–2398, 2400–2407. himself bolstered accounts testifying conversion, allocution. “pretty hard,” took actions, want background “as crutch[,] say am situation now that.” 2343. remand Court, Appeals— claim time—changed view Instead “substantial,” previ ously had, 907, labeled “cursory,” 841, n. 14, 866. Compare (labeling “substantial”), 847, 3, “insub stantial”). More con cluded, difference; particular, “humanize” no fewer than 11 opinion. 850, 859, 860, 862, 863, 864, 865, 18, 869, 872, 874. failure prejudiced Belmontes. 8 There are problems conclusion: Some merely cumulative humanizing actually presented; adding little difference. Other proposed play aspects triggered admission powerful rebuttal. difference, wrong direction either event, Strickland First, Appeals’ view, “difficult childhood” “positive attributes.” 864. difficult childhood, testify “when five old, month-old brain tumor,” “exhibited symptoms depression” grand “alcoholism prescription drug addiction,” immediate extended family lived “constant strife.” positive attributes, produced testi mony “strong child face adversity.” illustrated “kind, responsible, likeable”; “got along siblings” “respectful towards grandparents their disapproval mixed racial background”; “participated community activities, kept up school got teachers [an] illness, friends easily.” recounted above recognized courts originally, panel, targeting “humanizing” theme highlighted. Compare, e.g., ibid., 2317 (death 10-month 9 old sister); 2319, 2325 (difficult childhood); 2314–2315 (family member’s addictions); 2314– 2315, 2324–2325 strife abuse); 2317, 2347–2348, 2397 (strong child); 2326–2327 (close relationship siblings); 2317– 2319 grandparents); 2348– 2351 (participation events); also, Traverse Respondent’s Return Writ Habeas Corpus 5–89–0736–EJG– Cal.), p. (“[C]ounsel’s presentation ar guably adequate [evidence] ‘human izing’ petitioner”). “well acquainted” potential features. Schriro Landrigan, 550 465, 481 (2007). Additional points insignificant benefit, any all. carried greater weight submitted expert Such “make connections between various themes explain they contrib uted Belmontes’s involvement activity.” 853. ibid. (discussing expert’s importance testimony). required neither complex nor technical. make logical kind layperson equipped make. simply understand evidence; common sense mercy. more, mental state, seeking behavior, putting some favorable context exposed Darden Wainwright, 477 168, 186 (1986) (“Any attempt portray petitioner nonviolent petitioner’s convic tions. Similarly, attempted man, although married, spending weekend furlough girlfriend”). If, example, ‘high likelihood adjustment setting,’ ” suggested might, Brief Appellant 01–99018 (CA9), 34, question immediately arisen: “What propensity toward violence with? Does another alter your view?” Expert explaining why feel sympathy, opposed facts might elicit response, led similar rejoinder: “Is such sympathy equally ap propriate someone murder?” Any perspective fair game. Many fail reason. He “extended bout rheumatic fever,” “emotional instability, impulsivity, im pairment neurophysiological mechanisms plan ning reasoning.” Amended 120. cold, calculated subsequent bragging served counterpoint. “more-evidence-is-better” approach advo cated seem appealing—after all, lose? here lot lose. heavyhanded light, experts, invited strongest possible rebuttal—the responsible murders. counters went so far citation, “[t]here basis suggesting [expert testimony] were murders rather one.” 20. surely pertinent assessing “explain[ing] activity,” 853, know activity issue. irrelevant asserted, each them sort envi sioned Appeals. noted retained discretion 869–870, If doubts, contended, secured answer through motion limine. judge, however, left doubt stood. While ruling 2254, judge certain purposes, 2256, When violent, ordered stricken evidence—to let “go background”—if pressed forward. balancing factors aggrava tors, repeatedly referred ag gravating “scant.” 870, 873, 875, 878. 12 characterization misses Strickland’s review evidence—the good bad—when Here, worst bad good. careful case. aggravation characterized “scant” ignores “elephant courtroom”—Belmontes’ role murder—that 551 867 2008) (Callahan, J., dissenting denial rehearing en banc). Even it—which include murder—the “was intentional extraordinary brutal ity.” 819, 354. “[t]he properly aggra vating case—in stances crime—was overwhelming.” 809, 348 (citation omitted). Cir cuit saw differently. viewed crime “conceivably significant” factor. 871. concluded involve needless suffering victim.” court’s comprehend assertion “need less suffering.” autopsy photographs mangled head, skull crushed blows bar wielded corpse showed numerous “defensive bruises contusions 13 [her] hands, arms, feet,” 839, “plainly evidenced desperate struggle [Belmontes’] hands,” die, officers fighting ultimately succumbing injuries caused 3. heard savage solely prevent interference burglary netted montes $100 suffered, clearly needless. error may traced confusion appropriate burden proof. quoted language elsewhere applied something different. preju dice determination, addition murdered Howard, enough, adduced, rule prison.” tes, 875. does require “rule out” prevail. Rather, places defendant, State, “reasonable probability” Un proper application standard, carry hard imagine outweighing becomes harder envision murder—“the most imaginable evidence,” Judge Levi it, S-89–0736, 183a—is added mix. failed, notion 14 did, bolster case, fanciful. certiorari leave forma pauperis granted. judgment remanded further proceedings consistent ordered. STEVENS, concurring JUSTICE concurring. 1982, Penal Code §190.3(k)* conveyed unmistakable message juries give extenuate severity crime. 7, 27 (2006) (STEVENS, dissenting). presided hearing law, instructions reflected understanding. 33–34. later Supreme squarely held aspect defendant’s history provide ‘tend reduce culpability crime.’ (quoting Skipper South Carolina, 476 1, (Powell, concur ring judgment)). adduced hear contributions youth rehabilitation program. Neither ministers behalf, Their afford principled imposing death. —————— * Ann. §190.3(k) (West 1988). 29–31 record, especially six jurors makes me law forbade giving all.” 36–39. remain vinced initial correctly aside narrow us failed uncover persuaded return hardly matters, my conscientious jurors’ mistaken prevented addi tional “any all,” 39, alone controlling weight. Despite disagreement decision once again, nev ertheless conclusion probably affect outcome

Classification Label: 1