The state of Arizona handed down a first-degree murder conviction against Landrigan who was sentenced to death. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed Landrigan's sentence. Landrigan then filed a petition with the Arizona Supreme Court for post-conviction relief stating that during the sentencing, counsel had not been effective in investigating mitigating evidence. Landrigan also requested an evidentiary hearing. Landrigan's hearing request was denied by the Supreme Court, as they concluded he could not argue that his counsel was not effective considering Landrigan did not tell his counsel to present the mitigating evidence. The Arizona Supreme Court also denied the petition.
A writ of habeas corpus was filed by Landrigan claiming his counsel was not effective and again requested an evidentiary hearing. On the merits of the case in question, Landrigan's request was again denied by the district court. They concluded that even if it was the case that Landrigan's counsel was not sufficient, he did not show that his case was hurt because of his counsel's deficiencies. However, the district court did grant a certificate of appealability for his claim of ineffective assistance from his counsel. The Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, made up of a panel of three judges, confirmed the district court's denial of writ. Landrigan's petition of habeas corpus was granted for Landrigan by the 9th Court of Appeal after rehearing en banc. The decision of the court was based on two recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court. In the case of Rompilla v. Beard, the Supreme Court held that counsel has the duty to build up and present mitigating evidence. This is the case even in capital cases even with defendants that are "uninterested in helping" or "even actively obstructive" in building a mitigating case. In the case of Wiggins v. Smith, the Court held that if the defendant in a capital sentencing hearing is prejudiced, he should be measured again by "the evidence in aggravation against the totality of available mitigating evidence." Because of these cases, the 9th Circuit held that Landrigan made a legitimate claim when he stated his counsel did not give him effective legal assistance. The case was then remanded to a district court for an evidentiary hearing.
Click here to learn more about Thomas E. Stagg of Simmons, Jannace & Stagg