Michael A. Knowles, Warden v. Alexandre Mirzayance (556 U.S. 111)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided March 24, 2009 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 556 U.S. 111 · 129 S. Ct. 1411
- Decided
- March 24, 2009
- Term
- October Term 2008
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Thomas
- Issue area
- Civil Rights
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court. A federal court may grant a habeas corpus application arising from a state-court adjudication on the merits if the state court’s decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1). In this case, respondent Alexandre Mirzayance claimed ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney recommended withdrawing his insanity defense. The California courts rejected this claim on state postconviction review. We must decide whether this decision was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. We hold that it was not. Whether reviewed under the standard of review set forth in § 2254(d)(1) or de novo, Mirzayance failed to establish that his counsel’s performance was ineffective, see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984). I Mirzayance confessed that he stabbed his 19-year-old cousin nine times with a hunting knife and then shot her four times. At trial, he entered pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI). Under California law, when both of these pleas are entered, the court must hold a bifurcated trial, with guilt determined during the first phase and the viability of the defendant’s NGI plea during the second. Cal. Penal Code Ann. §…
Excerpt of a 28,958-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.