Robert Washington v. D. Adams , 622 F. App'x 659 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 12 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT W. WASHINGTON, No. 13-15616
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:09-cv-01801-AWI-JLT
v.
MEMORANDUM*
D. G. ADAMS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 22, 2015
San Francisco, California
Before: PAEZ, MURGUIA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Robert Washington appeals the denial of his habeas petition under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. Because the
petition was filed after April 24, 1996, the provisions of the Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) govern. Lindh v. Murphy, 521
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
U.S. 320, 326-27 (1997). Under AEDPA, habeas relief may be granted only if the
state court’s adjudication was: (1) “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable
application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme
Court of the United States;” or (2) “based on an unreasonable determination of the
facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d).
1. Washington argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel under
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), because his attorney failed to
request a competency hearing and failed to investigate or present a mental health
defense. When counsel has reason to doubt the defendant’s competency, failure to
request a competency hearing may fall below a reasonable standard of professional
competence under Strickland. See Stanley v. Cullen, 633 F.3d 852, 862 (9th Cir.
2011). The petitioner must also establish prejudice by demonstrating a “reasonable
probability that the court would have found [the defendant] incompetent to stand
trial.” Hoffman v. Arave, 455 F.3d 926, 938 (9th Cir. 2006), vacated in part on
other grounds, 552 U.S. 117 (2008).
2. We need not address whether Washington’s attorney was ineffective in
failing to request a competency hearing because Washington has failed to establish
a reasonable probability that the trial court would have adjudged him incompetent.
2
After the guilt phase of the trial, Washington answered a series of questions that
the judge asked relating to his waiver of a jury determination of his prior
convictions, which the record shows he was able to answer without difficulty. In
addition, the record does not reflect any erratic behavior or outbursts. Although
“calm behavior in the courtroom is not necessarily inconsistent with mental
incompetence,” Odle v. Woodford, 238 F.3d 1084, 1088 (9th Cir. 2001), in light of
the record presented, the state courts’ determination that Washington failed to
demonstrate prejudice was not objectively unreasonable.
3. Washington also fails to establish prejudice with respect to his claim that
trial counsel was ineffective for not investigating or raising a mental health
defense. To prevail on an insanity defense under California law, the trier of fact
must find that it is more likely than not that the defendant “was incapable of
knowing or understanding the nature and quality of his or her act and of
distinguishing right from wrong at the time of the commission of the offense.” Cal.
Penal Code § 25(b) (West 2015). Alternatively, a successful mental health defense
may negate the mens rea required for the specific offenses charged. In this case, it
was not objectively unreasonable for the state courts to conclude that counsel’s
failure to investigate or raise a mental health defense did not result in prejudice to
Washington. See Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111, 127-28 (2009); Bemore v.
3
Chappell, 788 F.3d 1151, 1169-70 (9th Cir. 2015); Woods v. Sinclair, 764 F.3d
1109, 1133 (9th Cir. 2014). The record does not include any evidence that
Washington was insane or unable to form the intent required for the crimes
charged. Thus, the district court properly rejected Washington’s claim that his
attorney’s failure to pursue a mental health defense constituted ineffective
assistance of counsel.
AFFIRMED.
4