Payton v. Woodford

13 Citing cases

  1. Payton v. Woodford

    299 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 120 times
    Holding that although the petitioner complained that his trial counsel conferred with him for only 8.1 hours, no prejudice was shown, as the petitioner "point[ed] to nothing that would have happened differently had [counsel] and he spent more time together"

    A divided three-judge panel of our court reversed the grant of the writ as to the penalty phase. Payton v. Woodford, 258 F.3d 905 (9th Cir.), reh'g en banc granted, 273 F.3d 1271 (2001). We then agreed to rehear this case en banc.

  2. Payton v. Woodford

    00-99000eb (9th Cir. Oct. 20, 2003)

    A three-judge panel of this court, however, disagreed that Payton's penalty phase was fundamentally unfair, reversed the district court, and ordered the writ vacated. Payton v. Woodford, 258 F.3d 905 (9th Cir. 2001). We then took this case en banc, adopted the three-judge panel's decision that there were no guilt phase errors, but affirmed the district court's decision with respect to the penalty phase.

  3. Payton v. Woodford

    346 F.3d 1204 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 79 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Payton v. Woodford, 346 F.3d 1204 (9th Cir. 2003), we overruled Keating only to the extent that it placed on the State the burden of demonstrating the significance of the error under the harmlessness standard.

    A three-judge panel of this court, however, disagreed that Payton's penalty phase was fundamentally unfair, reversed the district court, and ordered the writ vacated. Payton v. Woodford, 258 F.3d 905 (9th Cir. 2001). We then took this case en banc, adopted the three-judge panel's decision that there were no guilt phase errors, but affirmed the district court's decision with respect to the penalty phase.

  4. Payton v. Davis

    906 F.3d 812 (9th Cir. 2018)   Cited 38 times
    Holding that a certificate of appealability is required to appeal the denial of a Rule 60(d) motion in a habeas proceeding

    The evidence overwhelmingly pointing to Payton's guilt and lengthy procedural background of his numerous appeals are also set forth in the California Supreme Court's, this court's, and the United States Supreme Court's previous opinions in this case. See, e.g. , People v. Payton , 3 Cal.4th 1050, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 526, 839 P.2d 1035 (1992) ; Payton v. Woodford , 258 F.3d 905 (9th Cir. 2001) ; Payton v. Woodford , 346 F.3d 1204 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); Brown v. Payton , 544 U.S. 133, 125 S.Ct. 1432, 161 L.Ed.2d 334 (2005). A

  5. Warden v. Payton

    544 U.S. 133 (2005)   Cited 2,386 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding the Ninth Circuit "made this ... assumption, and it was in error to do so"

    On appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a divided panel reversed. Payton v. Woodford, 258 F. 3d 905 (2001). The Court of Appeals granted Payton's petition for rehearing en banc and, by a 6-to-5 vote, affirmed the District Court's order granting habeas relief. Payton v. Woodford, 299 F. 3d 815 (2002).

  6. Payton v. Cullen

    658 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 2011)   Cited 78 times
    Dismissing Eighth Amendment claim in the absence of any protocol as unripe

    The three-judge panel reversed on the factor (k) issue, and affirmed on Payton's claims that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to investigate and present evidence about his personal, family, and mental background and to pursue the background of a jailhouse informant during the penalty phase; that prosecutorial misconduct offended due process; and that he received inadequate funds to develop defenses and investigate informants. Payton v. Woodford, 258 F.3d 905, 922–25 (9th Cir.2001). The panel also rejected Payton's arguments that his counsel prejudicially failed to develop and present evidence of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) resulting from service in Vietnam, and that his sentence should be reversed for cumulative error.

  7. Osband v. Woodford

    282 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 1 times

    A panel of the Court of Appeals cannot revisit a prior decision made by the court sitting en banc. Payton v. Woodford, 258 F.3d 905, 914 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 964 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (Reinhardt, J., concurring) ("After all, overruling precedent is an important function that is expressly reserved to the en banc court, and a panel is ordinarily not free to do so."). McDowell II plainly holds that protective orders like the one issued in this case do not fall outside the bounds of the very broad discretion of the district courts, and that it is not clear error to deny a motion to reconsider such an order.

  8. Marston v. White

    18 F. App'x 545 (9th Cir. 2001)

    A prosecutor's misconduct violates a defendant's constitutional rights only if it "so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process." Payton v. Woodford, 258 F.3d 905, ----, ----, slip op. 9709, 9720 (9th Cir.2001). Marston argues that three statements by the prosecutor constitute misconduct.

  9. Doerr v. Ryan

    No. CV-02-00582-PHX-JJT (D. Ariz. Jul. 7, 2021)

    Because Doerr has not identified specific, legally relevant information counsel failed to obtain from him personally, he has not shown that counsel performed ineffectively by failing to meet and consult with him more frequently about mitigating evidence. See Payton v. Woodford, 258 F.3d 905, 922 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding counsel's performance was not ineffective where petitioner “points to nothing that would have happened differently had [counsel] and he spent more time together”), overruled on other grounds by Brown v. Payton, 544 U.S. 133 (2005). b. Mitigation specialist

  10. Bonilla-Galeas v. United States

    Criminal No. 13-00765 HG-2 (D. Haw. Jan. 24, 2017)   Cited 1 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Even if Petitioner could establish that Attorney Rodriguez' efforts to confer with him were deficient, Petitioner fails to show what benefit additional discussions would have afforded him. See Payton v. Woodford, 258 F.3d 905, 922 (9th Cir. 2001) (overruled on other grounds by Payton v. Woodford, 299 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that although the petitioner complained that his trial counsel conferred with him for only 8.1 hours, no prejudice was shown, as the petitioner "point[ed] to nothing that would have happened differently had [counsel] and he spent more time together"). Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that additional consultations would have spurred him to proceed to trial instead of pleading guilty.