Ronald Wesley Church v. STATE OF ARIZONA and CHARLES L. RYAN, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concluded that this case was suitable for
decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONALD WESLEY CHURCH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF ARIZONA and CHARLES L.
RYAN, Director, Arizona Department of
Corrections,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 11-17374
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-01563-DGC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 15, 2013 **
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, FARRIS, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Ronald Wesley Church appeals from the district court’s order denying his 28
U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291
FILED
JAN 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
and 2253(a). We affirm.
We conclude that there is insufficient evidence to find that Church’s counsel
performed deficiently. Even if Church’s counsel had performed deficiently in failing
to adequately inform the state trial court as to Church’s conditional competency and
judicially mandated requirement to take competency-restoring medication, however,
Church has failed to show prejudice because the state trial judge engaged in an
extended colloquy with Church to evaluate Church’s competency on the day of trial,
which questioning confirmed to the trial judge that Church was competent. Given the
trial court’s first-hand evaluation of Church on the day of trial, we conclude that there
is no reasonable probability that if Church’s counsel had presented complete
information to the trial court as to his conditional competency and asked for a
continuance on that basis that the trial court would have granted such a continuance.
We thus conclude that the last reasoned Arizona state court decision denying Church
post-conviction relief was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly
established United States Supreme Court precedent. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 694–96 (1984).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --