Sanders, et al v. Ylst, et al

Filing 366

ORDER DIRECTING Supplemental Briefing, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/11/16. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

RONALD L. SANDERS,

10
11
12
13
14
15

Case No. 1:92-cv-05471-LJO-SAB

Petitioner,

DEATH PENALTY CASE

v.

ORDER DIRECTING SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING

ROBERT L. AYERS, JR., Warden of San
Quentin State Prison,
Respondent.
This matter is before the court following the parties’ recent briefing of the impact of

16

Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465 (2007), upon the previously ordered bifurcated evidentiary

17

hearing on petitioner’s claim 38, the sole remaining claim in this proceeding. Claim 38 alleges

18

ineffective assistance of trial counsel by acquiescence in petitioner’s request to forgo a penalty

19

phase defense. Specifically, the parties briefed whether petitioner's directing trial counsel not to

20

present mitigating evidence at the penalty phase prevents him from claiming prejudice as a result

21

thereof. Landrigan, 550 U.S. at 475; see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

22

I.

23

BACKGROUND

24

Petitioner is in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

25

pursuant to judgment of the Superior Court of California, County of Kern, imposing the death

26

sentence following his January 22, 1982 conviction by jury trial of one count of first degree

27

murder for which special circumstance allegations were found true. Petitioner’s conviction and

28

sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari.
1

1

Petitioner initiated this federal habeas corpus proceeding on July 13, 1992. His state

2

exhaustion petition was denied on September 1, 1999. On November 17, 1999, petitioner filed

3

his second amended petition in this proceeding. Petitioner was allowed to file a third amended

4

petition lodged July 24, 2001, asserting three additional claims.

5

On August 24, 2001, the court denied petitioner’s second and third amended petitions on

6

the merits. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Certiorari was

7

granted, and on October 11, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded.

8

On March 16, 2006, the Ninth Circuit, on remand, reversed this court’s denial of an

9

evidentiary hearing on petitioner’s claim 38 and remanded so that this court could conduct an

10

evidentiary hearing on the question

11
[W]hether [trial counsel’s] decision not to conduct a reasonable investigation
could have constituted ineffective assistance, i.e., whether [petitioner’s] insistence
– the rationality of which [trial counsel] at times questioned – that he did not want
to present a penalty phase defense excused [trial counsel] from fulfilling his duty
to conduct a thorough investigation.

12
13
14
15

Sanders v. Brown, 171 F. App’x 588, 592 (9th Cir. 2006).

16

The court, noting the Supreme Court’s May 14, 2007 decision in Landrigan, ordered a

17

bifurcated evidentiary hearing. The first stage of the evidentiary hearing was to consider whether

18

trial counsel’s decision not to investigate mitigation evidence was deficient performance; how the

19

proffered mitigation evidence might have been used to convince petitioner to change his mind

20

about not presenting a penalty defense at trial; and whether trial counsel should have, or could

21

have presented mitigation evidence in spite of petitioner’s objections. The second stage of the

22

evidentiary hearing was to consider whether, had petitioner changed his mind, the mitigation

23

evidence would have convinced the jury to sentence him to life without parole. The court

24

provided that respondent could contest and controvert the mitigation evidence during the second

25

stage of the evidentiary hearing which would take place after resolution of the first stage.

26
27
28

The stage one evidentiary hearing was held October 28 through 30, and November 3,
2008.
On December 2, 2008, the court granted petitioner’s motion to expand the record in
2

1

connection with the first stage hearing as to Exhibits 2, 10, 11, 13-18, 20-23, 24, 25, 28, 30-36,

2

and 56-133, which are deposition transcripts and public records and declarations relating to

3

opinions of petitioner’s experts.
On July 17, 2009, the court granted petitioner’s supplemental motion to expand the record

4
5

with documents inadvertently omitted from the motion granted on December 2, 2008.

6
7

On January 20, 2015, the court ordered the noted Landrigan briefing which was
completed on July 6, 2015.

8

II.

9

DISCUSSION

10

Whether trial counsel was deficient at the penalty phase as claimed by petitioner is, in the

11

court’s estimation, a close call, as is the potential impact of Landrigan upon this claim. The court

12

has not issued a ruling following the first stage evidentiary hearing and is considering vacating

13

the second stage evidentiary hearing. (See Doc. No. 346 at 3:25-4:13.)1 The court believes it

14

would be helpful to have the parties brief whether the mitigation evidence taken as true at the first

15

stage of the evidentiary hearing, as expanded and supplemented, would have convinced the jury

16

to sentence petitioner to life without parole. The court is mindful that many years have passed

17

since the first stage evidentiary hearing and that significant resources would be expended on a

18

second stage evidentiary hearing.

19

The mitigating evidence which petitioner alleges trial counsel deficiently failed to

20

investigate and present is set out in the record of the first stage hearing. The record includes

21

expert testimony about the prevailing standard for attorney representation in capital cases tried in

22

1981 and the psychological barriers that allegedly kept petitioner from understanding and

23

agreeing to presentation of a penalty phase defense. Also included is documentation of

24

petitioner's statements to counsel and the trial court regarding his decision not to present a

25

mitigation defense at the penalty phase of his trial.

26

Petitioner suggests that not all available mitigating evidence that could have been

27
28

1

References are to ECF system pagination.

3

1

presented at his 1982 trial is included in the first stage evidentiary hearing record.

2

359 at 9:18-11:1, 14:10-13.) However, petitioner’s first stage proffer included the mitigation

3

evidence that could have been presented absent deficient counsel. (See Doc. No. 208 3:4-12.)

4

The order bifurcating the evidentiary hearing contemplates a second stage hearing would analyze

5

prejudice arising from counsel’s failure to present the mitigation evidence proffered in the first

6

stage hearing. (See Doc. No. 180 at 2:18-24.) Petitioner appears to concede as much. (See Doc.

7

No. 359 at 13:20-22.) For these reasons, petitioner’s supplemental brief shall identify any

8

mitigating evidence not included in the evidentiary hearing record and explain how such evidence

9

may properly be considered at a second stage evidentiary hearing.

10

III.

11

(See Doc. No.

ORDER

12

For the reasons stated, it is hereby ORDERED that:

13

1.

The parties shall provide supplemental briefing of the following issue: whether the

14

mitigation evidence taken as true at the first stage of the evidentiary hearing, as

15

expanded and supplemented, would have convinced the jury to sentence petitioner

16

to life without parole,

17

2.

Petitioner’s supplemental brief, which shall also identify any mitigating evidence

18

not included in the evidentiary hearing record and explain how such evidence may

19

properly be considered at a second stage evidentiary hearing, shall be due forty-

20

five (45) days from the filed date of this order; respondent’s responsive brief shall

21

be due forty-five (45) days from the date on which petitioner files his brief; and

22

petitioner’s reply brief shall be due thirty (30) days from the date on which

23
24
25

respondent files his brief.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

January 11, 2016

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
26

3.

27
28
4