Wood v. Ryan

Summarized by:

  • Court: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Archives
  • Area(s) of Law: Habeas Corpus
  • Date Filed: 09-10-2012
  • Case #: 08-99003
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Judge Thomas for the Court, Circuit Judges Gould and Bybee
  • Full Text Opinion

To obtain relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), a party must show that the state court’s decision 1) “was contrary to clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court,” 2) “involved an unreasonable application of such law,” or 3) “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the record before the state court.”

Defendant Wood appeals the denial of his habeas corpus petition challenging his “convictions for murder and aggravated assault and the imposition the death penalty”. “Wood was arrested and indicted on two counts of first degree murder and two counts of aggravated assault against the police officers who subdued him.” A jury found him guilty on all counts. In 1998 Wood filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in federal district court. The district court found that certain claims had been exhausted and dismissed others for being procedurally barred. The Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial of the habeas petition findings of facts for clear error and prosecutorial misconduct and the “request for an evidentiary hearing for abuse of discretion.” Since the habeas petition was filed after April 1996, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) applied. Obtaining relief under AEDPA requires a showing that the state court’s decision 1) “was contrary to clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court,” 2) “involved an unreasonable application of such law,” or 3) “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the record before the state court.” The district court was found to be correct in denying claims of prosecutorial misconduct because there was no “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” § 2254(d)(1) governs the ineffective assistance of counsel claim which was adjudicated in a prior proceeding. This barred Wood from an evidentiary hearing in federal court because he did not properly allege the facts which would have entitled him to relief. AFFIRMED.

Advanced Search