Dykes v. Ayers

Background

Ernest Edward Dykes was convicted in California state court of murder, robbery, and attempted murder and was sentenced to death. His conviction and sentence were affirmed by the California Supreme Court, which also denied his state petition challenging the conviction and sentence. Dykes later filed a federal petition challenging them.

Dykes filed his First Motion for Discovery under Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. He sought permission to serve subpoenas requiring the California Attorney General, the Alameda County District Attorney, and prosecuting entities in California’s other counties to produce information about felony-murder prosecutions after Furman v. Georgia, defendants who received death sentences, death-penalty guidelines, and crime-related reports submitted to the California Attorney General. Dykes said the information would support Claim One of his petition, including his argument that his death sentence was disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment.

Legal standard

The court explained that a petitioner challenging a state conviction through a federal petition is not ordinarily entitled to discovery. Under Rule 6, a judge may allow discovery for “good cause.” Good cause requires specific allegations showing reason to believe that fully developing the facts could establish entitlement to relief.

The court also applied 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), which limits federal review when a state court has already decided a claim on the merits. Under that statute, relief may be available only if the state court’s decision was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established United States Supreme Court law, or was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. The court relied on Cullen v. Pinholster for the rule that review under § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court when it decided the claim.

Court’s analysis

The court focused on the portion of Claim One concerning whether Dykes’s death sentence was disproportionate to his crime. Dykes relied on the jury’s finding that the attempted murder of Bernice Clark was not willful, deliberate, and premeditated, as well as allegations about his age and criminal history. The respondent acknowledged that Dykes had presented this claim to the California Supreme Court, which rejected it on the merits.

The court concluded that, because the claim had been exhausted and decided on the merits in state court, Dykes first had to show that the California Supreme Court’s decision was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, or was based on an unreasonable factual determination. Until he made that showing, he could not establish good cause for expanding the state-court record through discovery or an evidentiary hearing.

The court rejected Dykes’s argument that the record limitation did not apply because he sought information about other prosecutions rather than facts unique to his own case. The court stated that the proposed statewide—and potentially nationwide—review of prosecutorial agencies was irrelevant to the required initial showing concerning the California Supreme Court’s decision. The court also declined to decide Claim One while ruling on the discovery motion, because the parties had not yet completed full briefing on that claim.

Disposition

The court held that Dykes had not demonstrated good cause for the requested discovery and denied his First Motion for Discovery. The order stated that he could renew the request if, after the parties’ briefing, the court determined that the California Supreme Court’s adjudication of the relevant part of Claim One was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, or was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.