Court Opinion

ID: 9818896
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 06:11:43.962642+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:28.065147
License: Public Domain

WARDLAW, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully and reluctantly dissent. The California Court of Appeal’s denial of Gugliotta’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to present a mental health defense is due “double deference.” *655See Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 105, 131 S.Ct. 770, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011); Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111, 123, 129 S.Ct. 1411, 173 L.Ed.2d 251 (2009). See generally Stephen R. Reinhardt, The Demise of Habeas Corpus and the Rise of Qualified Immunity: The Court’s Ever Increasing Limitations on the Development and Enforcement of Constitutional Rights and Some Particularly Unfortunate Consequences, 113 U. Mich. L.Rev. 1219 (2015). Giving the California courts the deference that is “due” according to the Supreme Court, there are “arguments or theories [that] ... could have supported” the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that either counsel’s performance was not deficient or that any deficient performance was not prejudicial. Harrington, 562 U.S. at 102, 131 S.Ct. 770. I would therefore affirm the district courts denial of the writ.