In Hardy v. Chappell, a divided Ninth Circuit panel earlier this week ordered habeas corpus relief for a defendant whose death sentence the California Supreme Court had reviewed twice. On direct appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of death. (People v. Hardy (1992) 2 Cal.4th 86.) On a habeas petition 15 years later, the court vacated the death penalty — but not the conviction — based on deficient representation by the defendant’s attorney. (In re Hardy (2007) 41 Cal.4th 977.) The Ninth Circuit now goes further, concluding the ineffective lawyering required reversal of the guilt judgment, too.
The Supreme Court’s habeas opinion was unanimous, the district court denied the defendant’s federal habeas petition, and this week’s Ninth Circuit decision drew a strong dissent. The Court of Appeals majority nonetheless found that the “case does not present a close question” and that the Supreme Court’s opinion was “objectively unreasonable.”
This is not the first time — indeed, not even the first time this year — that the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court have been at odds on habeas matters. (See, e.g., here and here.)
