Maxstadt v. Pickett

Background

In 2018, after convictions on five criminal charges in Mendocino County, a state trial court sentenced Ryan Joseph Maxstadt to 38 years and eight months to life. Maxstadt challenged two of those convictions in a federal petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which allows a federal court to review certain claims that a state conviction violates federal law.

The charges included attempted murder of a peace officer, assault with a firearm on a peace officer, possession of a firearm by a felon, reckless driving while evading a peace officer, and unlawful use of a motor vehicle. Maxstadt pleaded guilty to the last two charges and went to trial on the first three. A jury convicted him of assault with a firearm and possession of a firearm as a felon but deadlocked on attempted murder. After a retrial on that count, a second jury convicted him of attempted murder.

Legal standard

The court applied the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, a federal law that requires substantial deference to state-court decisions. Under that standard, federal relief generally is unavailable unless the state court’s decision contradicted clearly established United States Supreme Court law or applied that law unreasonably. The court also applied the two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel: a defendant must show both that the lawyer’s performance was seriously deficient and that the deficiency probably affected the result.

Court’s analysis

Ineffective assistance of trial counsel

The court denied all five ineffective-assistance subclaims.

First, Maxstadt argued that his lawyer should have hired a gunshot-residue expert. The court found no deficient performance because the state’s expert had found only one particle of residue, and a defense expert might have added little or could have found more residue, harming the defense. The court also found no substantial probability that a defense expert would have changed the outcome, particularly because the state had explained that being submerged in a creek could have washed residue from Maxstadt’s hands.

Second, Maxstadt argued that his lawyer should have sought a change of venue because of allegedly inflammatory publicity. The court found that he had not presented evidence showing that a venue change was necessary, that the record did not show extensive publicity or prejudice during jury questioning, and that the three news articles he later submitted did not establish otherwise. The court also stated that relying on new facts in federal court could mean the claim had not been properly presented to the state courts.

Third, Maxstadt argued that his lawyer should have removed at least one juror who was allegedly friends with the district attorney. The court denied the claim because Maxstadt offered no evidence that such friendships existed or that they biased the jury.

Fourth, Maxstadt argued that his lawyer failed to challenge a sentencing enhancement under California Penal Code § 12022.53(c). The court found that the record contradicted this argument: counsel had expressly asked the state court to strike the enhancement. The court therefore denied this subclaim.

Fifth, Maxstadt argued that his lawyer conceded during closing argument that Maxstadt possessed and fired a gun. The court found that counsel did not make that concession. Instead, counsel questioned whether Maxstadt had fired a gun and challenged the officer’s account. The court denied this subclaim as well.

Sufficiency of the evidence

Maxstadt argued that the evidence did not establish the specific intent to kill required for his attempted-murder conviction. The court denied the claim. It found that eyewitness testimony, video evidence, and the gun case recovered from Maxstadt’s vehicle could support a finding that he fired a gun at pursuing officers. Under California law, the court explained, a jury could infer an intent to kill from firing a gun toward a victim at close range in a manner that could have caused a fatal wound.

Jury instructions

Maxstadt challenged the state court’s use of CALCRIM No. 600, the instruction addressing attempted murder. He argued that language in the instruction improperly combined the requirements that he take a direct step toward killing someone and intend to kill that person.

The court denied the claim. Although the instruction included the language Maxstadt challenged, it expressly listed two separate elements. Other instructions also told the jury that it had to find both the prohibited act and the required intent. Applying the deferential federal standard, the court found no reasonable likelihood that the jury treated the two elements as one.

Actual innocence

Maxstadt asserted that he was actually innocent. The court stated that it remained unresolved whether federal law recognizes a standalone actual-innocence claim for habeas relief. It nevertheless denied the claim because Maxstadt presented no new evidence and relied only on evidence already considered at trial, essentially repeating his evidence-sufficiency argument.

Evidentiary hearing and conclusion

The court denied Maxstadt’s request for an evidentiary hearing because he requested one without providing grounds to support it.

The court ultimately denied Maxstadt’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The reproduced opinion text contains a truncated sentence about whether a certificate of appealability would issue. Because the supplied text is incomplete at that point, the certificate’s disposition cannot be stated with certainty.