Frank Atwood v. Charles Ryan ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                 FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    FRANK JARVIS ATWOOD,                      No. 14-99002
    Petitioner-Appellant,
    D.C. No.
    v.                        4:98-cv-00116-
    JCC
    CHARLES L. RYAN; GEORGE
    HERMAN, Warden, Arizona State
    Prison Complex—Eyman,                       OPINION
    Respondents-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Arizona
    John C. Coughenour, Senior District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted June 7, 2017
    Seattle, Washington
    Filed September 13, 2017
    Before: M. Margaret McKeown, Consuelo M. Callahan,
    and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges.
    Opinion by Judge Ikuta
    2                        ATWOOD V. RYAN
    SUMMARY*
    Habeas Corpus / Death Penalty
    The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of a habeas
    corpus petition in a death penalty case.
    The petitioner was convicted after a jury trial and
    sentenced to death for kidnapping and first-degree felony
    murder. He claimed that his Eighth Amendment rights were
    violated by the use of an aggravating circumstance of a prior
    conviction for another offense for which under Arizona law
    a sentence of life imprisonment or death was imposable. The
    petitioner contended that the determination of his eligibility
    for the death penalty based on this aggravating factor was
    unconstitutionally arbitrary because Arizona subsequently
    determined that the conduct underlying his prior conviction
    for lewd and lascivious conduct under 
    Cal. Penal Code § 288
    was not so serious as to warrant a life sentence. The panel
    held that the Arizona Supreme Court’s adjudication of this
    claim was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of
    clearly established federal law as determined by the United
    States Supreme Court.
    The panel held that the state habeas court did not make an
    unreasonable determination of the facts by failing to hold an
    evidentiary hearing on a claim of law enforcement
    misconduct.
    *
    This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has
    been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
    ATWOOD V. RYAN                           3
    The panel held that the petitioner did not establish
    ineffective assistance of trial counsel in the failure to develop
    information regarding the victim’s bones, which would have
    allowed counsel to challenge the State’s chronology
    implicating the petitioner in the murder.
    The panel held that the petitioner did not meet the
    requirements set forth in Martinez v. Ryan for overcoming the
    procedural default of a claim of ineffective assistance of
    sentencing counsel in the failure to present evidence from
    mental health experts because he did not show that the failure
    to raise this claim in state court resulted from ineffective
    assistance of state habeas counsel. The panel agreed with the
    district court’s conclusion, after an evidentiary hearing, that
    the claim of ineffective assistance of sentencing counsel
    lacked merit, and the petitioner therefore failed to establish
    ineffective assistance of state habeas counsel.
    COUNSEL
    Larry A. Hammond (argued), Osborn Maledon P.A., Phoenix,
    Arizona; Paula K. Harms, Assistant Federal Public Defender;
    Jon M. Sands, Federal Public Defender; Office of the Federal
    Public Defender, Phoenix, Arizona; for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Lacey Stover Gard (argued), Chief Counsel, Capital
    Litigation Section; Mark Brnovich, Attorney General; Office
    of the Attorney General, Tucson, Arizona; for Respondents-
    Appellees.
    4                         ATWOOD V. RYAN
    OPINION
    IKUTA, Circuit Judge:
    Frank Jarvis Atwood was found guilty of kidnapping and
    first-degree felony murder and sentenced to death. Atwood
    appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of
    habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. §§ 1291
     and 2253, and we affirm.
    I
    Because the facts as found by the Arizona Supreme Court
    are presumed correct, 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
    (e)(1), the following
    background relies on the state court’s determination of factual
    issues.
    Before the kidnapping and murder convictions at issue in
    this case, Frank Jarvis Atwood had been convicted twice for
    sexual incidents involving children. In 1975, Atwood was
    convicted of engaging in lewd and lascivious conduct with a
    child under the age of fourteen years in violation of section
    288 of the California Penal Code,1 State v. Atwood, 
    171 Ariz. 576
    , 593 (1992) (en banc), and incarcerated at Atascadero
    State Hospital (a maximum-security facility for convicts
    1
    At the time, section 288 of the California Penal Code (1975)
    provided that a person who “wilfully” committed a “lewd or lascivious
    act” with “a child under the age of fourteen years, with the intent of
    arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust or passions or sexual desires
    of such person or of such child” was guilty of a felony punishable by up
    to life imprisonment. 
    1937 Cal. Stat. 1562
    .
    ATWOOD V. RYAN                                5
    deemed to be mentally ill) until his discharge in 1978, 
    id.
     at
    647 n.22.2
    In 1981, Atwood was convicted for kidnapping an eight-
    year-old boy. 
    Id. at 593, 654
    . Atwood encountered the boy
    while riding his motorcycle and offered the boy a ride. 
    Id. at 655
    . When the boy refused, Atwood threw the boy’s bicycle
    down and pulled him onto the motorcycle. 
    Id.
     After
    kidnapping the victim, Atwood forced him to perform oral
    sex, “holding his head down so roughly that the boy received
    visible scratches on his neck” and threatening to kill the boy
    if he screamed. 
    Id.
     Atwood was incarcerated in a California
    State Penitentiary for this offense. 
    Id. at 593
    .
    While in prison, Atwood communicated with Ernest
    Bernsienne (a member of a religious cult) about his sexual
    interest in young children. 
    Id. at 596
    , 634 n.17. In one of his
    letters to Bernsienne, Atwood disclosed that he had been
    molested when he was fourteen by a twenty-four-year-old
    man but stated that he “honestly . . . really enjoyed it!”
    Atwood asserted in the letter that he saw “no reason that sex
    between [him] and pre-adolescent kids is not only not
    allowed but also illegal,” and admitted that when he was
    fifteen, he and a friend had taken a four-year-old girl into
    2
    The records from Atwood’s incarceration in Atascadero were
    submitted in connection with his ineffective assistance of sentencing
    counsel claims. Although the record before the Arizona Supreme Court
    did not include the facts underlying Atwood’s 1975 conviction, Atwood,
    
    171 Ariz. at
    654 n.24, the Atascadero records and other records submitted
    to the district court show that Atwood kissed and fondled a ten-year-old
    girl. According to the Arizona Supreme Court, Atwood “was initially sent
    to the Atascadero Mental Hospital for an indefinite period of time” but
    was subsequently resentenced for a definite period of time. 
    Id.
     at 647
    n.22.
    6                    ATWOOD V. RYAN
    some bushes to “explain the birds and the bees to [his] young
    friend, as well as satisfying [Atwood’s] sexual curiosity.”
    Atwood was released on parole in May 1984. 
    Id. at 593
    .
    Bernsienne testified that during a phone call after Atwood’s
    release, Atwood stated that he was considering “going out
    and picking up a child” and that “this time he would make
    sure the child wouldn’t talk.” 
    Id. at 596
    .
    After he was released on parole in May 1984, Atwood
    began traveling across country in his black 1975 Datsun
    280Z. 
    Id. at 593
    . In August 1984, Atwood met Jack
    McDonald, who became his traveling companion. 
    Id.
    Among other stops, Atwood and McDonald visited
    Bernsienne in Enid, Oklahoma. 
    Id.
     In mid-September,
    Atwood and McDonald traveled to Tucson, Arizona. 
    Id.
     The
    morning of September 17, 1984, Atwood was seen at De
    Anza Park, a congregating spot popular among Tucson’s
    transient population. 
    Id.
     Atwood left the park in the middle
    of the afternoon. 
    Id.
    Around the same time, Sam Hall, a teacher at a Tucson
    elementary school, noticed a “dark Z car” with California
    license plates in an alley near the school. 
    Id. at 592
    . Hall
    “described the driver as a man with a medium frame,
    shoulder-length hair, and a dark beard and mustache,” 
    id.,
     a
    description that fit Atwood at the time, and noted that the man
    was “making strange gestures and shaking his head,” 
    id. at 593
    . Because Hall was “somewhat unnerved by the driver’s
    appearance and behavior, he wrote down the car’s license
    plate number.” 
    Id.
    At around 3:30 p.m., an eight-year-old girl named Vicki
    Lynn Hoskinson left her Tucson home on a pink bicycle to
    drop off a card at a nearby mailbox. 
    Id. at 592, 595
    . Two
    ATWOOD V. RYAN                           7
    teenage boys in the neighborhood passed Vicki as she was
    riding her bicycle south toward the intersection of Root Lane
    and Pocito Place, which was only a few hundred feet from the
    elementary school where Hall had observed the “dark Z car”
    with California license plates. 
    Id.
     at 592–93. The boys also
    passed a man with “long dark hair, a mustache, and the
    beginnings of a beard” in a “dark Datsun Z car” heading
    towards the same intersection. 
    Id.
     (internal quotation marks
    omitted). When Vicki did not return home, her mother sent
    Vicki’s sister to look for her. 
    Id. at 592
    . Vicki’s sister found
    Vicki’s pink bicycle lying in the street near the intersection of
    Root Lane and Pocito Place, but Vicki was missing. 
    Id.
    Atwood returned to De Anza Park “approximately one
    hour before sunset.” 
    Id. at 593
    .             “As [Atwood’s]
    acquaintances at the park would later testify, he returned with
    blood on his hands” and a knife. 
    Id. at 593, 596
    . Atwood
    told his acquaintances that he “stabbed a man in a drug
    transaction” and “took the body to the desert near the
    mountains.” 
    Id. at 596
    . McDonald testified that Atwood had
    cactus needles in his arms and legs. 
    Id.
     That evening, after
    playing pool at a local tavern and returning a tire iron to an
    acquaintance, Atwood and McDonald left Tucson in
    Atwood’s car for New Orleans, Louisiana. 
    Id. at 593
    .
    McDonald later testified that he observed Atwood repeatedly
    sandpapering the blade of his knife during this trip. 
    Id. at 599
    .
    On September 18, Hall told the authorities about his
    observations, including the license plate number of the car.
    
    Id. at 593
    . Authorities traced the car to Atwood, 
    id.,
     and
    agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
    contacted his parents for information about his whereabouts,
    8                    ATWOOD V. RYAN
    
    id. at 596
    . The FBI also obtained a warrant for Atwood’s
    arrest on kidnapping charges. 
    Id. at 593
    .
    While driving through Texas, Atwood’s Datsun had
    mechanical problems. 
    Id. at 636
    . Atwood, who was
    financially dependent on his parents, called his mother for
    money to pay for the car repairs. 
    Id.
     McDonald heard him
    say on the phone: “Even if I did do it, you have to help me.”
    
    Id. at 637
    . McDonald also testified that Atwood told him that
    law enforcement was “trying to stick something on him about
    a little girl.” 
    Id.
     Atwood’s parents informed the FBI that
    Atwood was taking his car to Ken Stoepel Ford in Kerrville,
    Texas for repair work. 
    Id. at 593
    .
    On September 20, 1984, the FBI arrested Atwood at the
    garage and impounded his car. 
    Id.
     at 593–94. FBI agents
    interviewed Atwood in Kerrville for approximately two hours
    after his arrest. 
    Id. at 594
    . In this preliminary interview,
    Atwood stated that he and McDonald arrived at De Anza Park
    around noon on September 17, but that he left the park
    sometime later after an argument with McDonald. 
    Id.
    Atwood stated that, while he was away from the park, he met
    Gary Cisco in the area of Wetmore and Romero Roads, an
    area near Vicki’s neighborhood, to discuss buying marijuana
    and stated that he visited Armour Watts’s home. 
    Id.
     Both
    Cisco and Watts would later deny meeting with Atwood that
    afternoon. 
    Id.
     Atwood stated that he returned to the park at
    5:00 p.m. 
    Id.
    FBI agents conducted an initial inspection of Atwood’s
    car in Kerrville. 
    Id.
     FBI Agent Declan Hoffman later
    testified that, as a part of the inspection, he photographed
    Atwood’s car from numerous angles. (This set of photos is
    referred to as the Kerrville Suite.) At least one photo
    ATWOOD V. RYAN                             9
    included in the Kerrville Suite shows a streak of pink paint on
    the front bumper of Atwood’s Datsun.
    The next day, September 21, 1984, the FBI transported
    Atwood to San Antonio, Texas. 
    Id.
     En route to San Antonio,
    Atwood changed his story, telling agents that he had returned
    to De Anza Park at 3:30 p.m. rather than 5:00 p.m. 
    Id.
     The
    same day, the FBI agents transported Atwood’s car to an FBI
    facility in San Antonio and obtained a search warrant to
    conduct a more thorough search of the car. 
    Id.
     On
    September 22, 1984, the FBI agents executed the search
    warrant and observed pink paint on the front bumper of
    Atwood’s car during this search. FBI Agent Edward Burwitz
    took scrapings of this pink paint from the front bumper, and
    FBI Agent Hoffman took additional photos. (This set of
    photos is referred to as the San Antonio Suite.)
    On September 27, 1984, Atwood was charged with
    kidnapping. 
    Id. at 594
    . Because the investigation was still
    ongoing at that time, authorities did not know what additional
    evidence would be found or whether Vicki was still alive. 
    Id.
    This uncertainty changed on April 11, 1985, when the skull
    and bones of a child were found in the desert northwest of
    Tucson. 
    Id.
     Through dental records, the Pima County
    Medical Examiner, Dr. Richard Froede, and a physical
    anthropologist from the University of Arizona, Dr. Walter
    Birkby, identified the remains as Vicki’s. 
    Id. at 594, 598
    .
    Both experts noted the presence of adipocere on some of the
    bones during their evaluation.3 The State’s experts could not,
    however, determine the cause of death from the bones that
    were found. 
    Id. at 598
    .
    3
    Adipocere is a waxy substance that is formed during postmortem
    decomposition when bacteria breaks down a body’s tissue.
    10                  ATWOOD V. RYAN
    Atwood’s initial counsel, Lamar Couser, hired two
    experts, Dr. Philip Keen, the Yavapai County Medical
    Examiner, and Dr. Hal Chilton, a forensic odontologist, to
    inspect the remains. See 
    id. at 604
    . Keen and Chilton agreed
    that the remains were Vicki’s. 
    Id.
     Keen’s report noted the
    presence of adipocere and stated that its presence “suggests
    that at least for some time after death and prior to
    skeletonization of the remains the body was subjected to a
    moist environment.”
    Once both the State and defense experts had the
    opportunity to inspect Vicki’s remains, her family conducted
    funeral services on May 30, 1985. 
    Id. at 604
    . Soon after
    Vicki’s burial, Atwood’s second counsel, Stanton Bloom,
    replaced Couser. 
    Id.
     Bloom unsuccessfully sought to have
    Vicki’s remains exhumed, arguing that additional testing was
    needed to determine whether the remains had been correctly
    identified. 
    Id.
     Records also show that Bloom consulted with
    two forensic anthropologists, an odontologist, and a dentist
    regarding the remains.
    On May 15, 1985, Atwood was indicted for first-degree
    murder. 
    Id. at 594
    . The State consolidated the kidnapping
    and murder charges for trial. 
    Id.
     The Arizona Supreme Court
    summarized the State’s theory at trial as follows:
    Defendant, a convicted pedophile, was
    cruising [Vicki’s] neighborhood in search of
    a child. He saw [Vicki] riding her bike near
    the mailbox and followed her on the street as
    she cut through a field on her way home. The
    field led to a short street—Pocito—that
    intersected with Root Lane. Defendant
    proceeded to Root Lane (where he was seen
    ATWOOD V. RYAN                          11
    by the teenagers), intending to abduct [Vicki]
    as she traveled down Pocito. [Vicki] stopped
    briefly to talk with a friend who lived on
    Pocito, and then continued down the street.
    Defendant’s car struck [Vicki’s] bike, leaving
    a pink paint smear on the car bumper, and he
    grabbed the child. He then proceeded toward
    northwest Tucson. En route, his car was
    sighted by three people, all of whom later
    identified defendant and testified that they
    saw a young child in the passenger’s seat.
    Defendant took the child to the desert, where
    he molested and murdered her. He then
    returned to De Anza Park in central Tucson,
    where he had been earlier in the day.
    
    Id.
     at 594–95.
    According to the State’s witnesses at trial, laboratory tests
    established that the pink paint on the front bumper of
    Atwood’s car had come “from the victim’s bike or from
    another source exactly like the bike” and that Vicki’s bicycle
    had nickel particles on it that were consistent with nickel on
    Atwood’s bumper. 
    Id. at 595
    . The State’s accident
    reconstruction expert, Paul Larmour, testified that “he found
    a nearly perfect match heightwise between the contact area on
    the backside of the bicycle and the [paint] transfer on the
    bumper,” 
    id.
     (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks
    omitted), and that “marks on the car’s gravel pan were
    consistent with the theory that it struck the bicycle at a low
    speed and caused the bike to lodge beneath the car,” 
    id.
    After a two-month trial, the jury found Atwood guilty of
    kidnapping and first-degree felony murder. 
    Id.
     at 591–92.
    12                        ATWOOD V. RYAN
    Before sentencing, the State alleged three capital
    aggravating factors, and Atwood offered several mitigating
    circumstances. The court’s probation department also
    prepared a presentence report. At the sentencing hearing,
    Bloom called two witnesses: Atwood and his father. 
    Id. at 651
    .
    After reviewing the evidence presented, the trial court
    found the aggravating factor set out in section 13-703(F)(1)
    of the Arizona Revised Statutes had been proven beyond a
    reasonable doubt. 
    Id.
     at 647–48. At the time of sentencing,
    this statute provided:
    F. Aggravating circumstances                   to    be
    considered shall be the following:
    1. The defendant has been convicted of
    another offense in the United States for which
    under Arizona law a sentence of life
    imprisonment or death was imposable.
    
    1985 Ariz. Sess. Laws 1439
     (codified at 
    Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13
    -
    703(F)(1)). The trial court held that Atwood’s conviction in
    1975 for lewd and lascivious conduct under section 288 of the
    California Penal Code supported the application of this factor
    because at the time of that conviction, Arizona had a
    materially identical criminal law providing that a person who
    commits a lewd or lascivious act with a minor was guilty of
    a felony punishable by life imprisonment. 
    1965 Ariz. Sess. Laws 25
     (then codified at 
    Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-652
    ).4 The
    4
    Section 13-652 of the Arizona Revised Statutes stated that “[a]
    person who wilfully commits . . . any lewd or lascivious act . . . with the
    intent of arousing, appealing to or gratifying the lust, passion or sexual
    ATWOOD V. RYAN                               13
    trial court found that the mitigating circumstances were not
    sufficiently substantial to warrant leniency. Atwood,
    
    171 Ariz. at 648
    . Accordingly, the trial court sentenced
    Atwood to death for the murder conviction and to a
    concurrent term of life imprisonment for the kidnapping
    conviction. 
    Id. at 591
    .
    On direct appeal, Atwood argued that his 1975 conviction
    could not be used as an aggravating circumstance under
    section 13-703(F)(1). Arizona revised its criminal statutes in
    1977 to eliminate life imprisonment as a potential punishment
    for lewd or lascivious conduct with a minor. See 
    1977 Ariz. Sess. Laws 731
     (then codified at 
    Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1412
    ).
    Therefore, Atwood argued that his 1975 conviction was not
    a crime for which “a sentence of life imprisonment or death
    was imposable” under Arizona law because “life
    imprisonment” was not “imposable” at the time of
    sentencing. Atwood, 
    171 Ariz. at
    646–48. Atwood also
    argued that use of section 13-703(F)(1) violated his Eighth
    Amendment rights (we refer to this claim as the “Eighth
    Amendment claim”).
    The Arizona Supreme Court rejected these claims. It
    interpreted the language in section 13-703(F)(1) as requiring
    the defendant to be convicted of an offense for which “a
    sentence of life imprisonment or death was imposable” under
    Arizona law at the time the defendant committed the offense,
    not at the time of the sentencing hearing for the subsequent
    offense, which could be years or decades later. Atwood,
    
    171 Ariz. at
    647–48. Applying this interpretation, the
    desires of either [the actor or victim],” was guilty of a felony punishable
    by life imprisonment if the victim was “a child under the age of fifteen
    years.” 
    1965 Ariz. Sess. Laws 25
    .
    14                        ATWOOD V. RYAN
    Arizona Supreme Court held that section 13-703(F)(1) was
    applicable to Atwood because a sentence of life imprisonment
    was imposable in 1974 when he committed the offense of
    lewd and lascivious conduct.5 
    Id. at 648
    . The Arizona
    Supreme Court affirmed Atwood’s conviction and sentence,
    
    id. at 660
    , and the United States Supreme Court denied
    certiorari, Atwood v. Arizona, 
    506 U.S. 1084
     (1993).
    In 1996, Atwood filed his first state habeas petition for
    post-conviction relief.6        Atwood raised his Eighth
    Amendment claim, as well as two other claims relevant here:
    (1) a claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to
    further investigate the presence of adipocere and discover the
    existence of the grave (we refer to this claim as the
    “adipocere ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim”), and
    (2) a claim that law enforcement officials (FBI agents and
    Pima County Sheriff deputies) engaged in misconduct by
    planting the pink paint found on the bumper of Atwood’s car
    (we refer to this claim as the “law enforcement misconduct
    claim”). The Arizona Superior Court denied relief on all
    claims. The Arizona Supreme Court denied review, and the
    United States Supreme Court denied certiorari.
    Atwood filed his first habeas petition in federal district
    court in 1998. As amended, his habeas petition raised forty-
    5
    Because Atwood presented his Eighth Amendment claim to the
    Arizona Supreme Court, which denied relief on the claim without
    explanation, “it may be presumed that the state court adjudicated the claim
    on the merits in the absence of any indication or state-law procedural
    principles to the contrary.” Harrington v. Richter, 
    562 U.S. 86
    , 99 (2011).
    6
    Daniel Davis represented Atwood during his state post-conviction
    proceedings and as second-chair counsel in federal habeas proceedings
    until February 3, 2012.
    ATWOOD V. RYAN                         15
    three claims, including the law enforcement misconduct
    claim (Claim 1-B), the adipocere ineffective assistance of
    trial counsel claim (Claim 2), and the Eighth Amendment
    claim (Claim 27). He also raised a new claim (Claim 29)
    alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing due to
    the failure to conduct a thorough investigation of Atwood’s
    background (we refer to this claim as the “ineffective
    assistance of sentencing counsel claim”).
    On June 6, 2005, the district court dismissed a number of
    Atwood’s claims on procedural grounds. The district court
    concluded that the ineffective assistance of sentencing
    counsel claim was procedurally defaulted because Atwood
    had failed to raise the claim in state court and failed to show
    cause and prejudice to excuse the default. The court allowed
    Atwood to file an additional memorandum in support of his
    remaining claims, and in November 2005, Atwood submitted
    new photos to support his law enforcement misconduct claim.
    In May 2007, the district court addressed Atwood’s
    remaining claims. The district court denied relief for the
    adipocere ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim and the
    Eighth Amendment claim, but granted a certificate of
    appealability on these claims. The district court stayed the
    proceedings to allow Atwood to exhaust the new aspects of
    his law enforcement misconduct claim that had not been
    presented to the state court. The court denied all of Atwood’s
    other claims on the merits and denied a certificate of
    appealability for these claims.
    In December 2007, Atwood filed his second state habeas
    petition to exhaust the law enforcement misconduct claim, as
    permitted by the district court. In support of this claim,
    Atwood produced affidavits from David Hill, a failure analyst
    16                   ATWOOD V. RYAN
    for the aerospace industry who was writing a book on
    Atwood’s case. The Arizona Superior Court held that an
    evidentiary hearing was unnecessary because Atwood failed
    to produce evidence sufficient to support a colorable claim of
    law enforcement misconduct. In reaching this conclusion, the
    state court determined that Hill’s conclusions and opinions
    were “well outside of any expertise he may have” and
    therefore did not constitute competent evidence to support
    Atwood’s claim. The state court dismissed Atwood’s petition
    on January 2, 2009. Atwood submitted a motion for
    rehearing, this time including an affidavit from an additional
    expert, Dr. Diana Hulick, who approved some of Hill’s
    findings. After considering Hulick’s affidavit and re-
    examining the photos submitted by Atwood, the state court
    denied the motion for rehearing. Atwood petitioned the
    Arizona Supreme Court for review.
    While Atwood’s petition to the Arizona Supreme Court
    on the law enforcement misconduct claim was pending, the
    State offered Atwood access to additional discovery. Taking
    advantage of this offer, Atwood’s counsel interviewed Gary
    Dhaemers, Cliff McCarter, and Leo Duffner, three former
    Pima County investigators who allegedly engaged in
    misconduct, as well as the State’s accident-reconstruction
    expert, Paul Larmour. Based on these interviews and
    additional new materials, Atwood filed a second motion for
    rehearing with the Arizona Superior Court. But the court
    again denied the rehearing motion, holding that the new
    information did not make Atwood’s law enforcement
    misconduct claim any more colorable. The Arizona Supreme
    Court later denied Atwood’s petition for review.
    Having exhausted his law enforcement misconduct claim
    in state court, Atwood returned to federal district court in
    ATWOOD V. RYAN                         17
    January 2012 for a ruling on this claim. The district court
    permitted additional briefing, ordered the transfer of exhibits
    from the state court to the federal court, and allowed
    Atwood’s attorneys to make an evidentiary proffer in court.
    After reviewing the evidence, the district court dismissed
    Atwood’s law enforcement misconduct claim, holding that
    the state court reasonably concluded that there was
    insufficient competent evidence supporting Atwood’s claim
    to warrant an evidentiary hearing. At this point, all of
    Atwood’s federal habeas claims had been dismissed.
    But a subsequent change in the law revived Atwood’s
    ineffective assistance of sentencing counsel claim. While
    Atwood’s federal habeas petition was pending in district
    court, the Supreme Court decided Martinez v. Ryan, 
    566 U.S. 1
     (2012), which held that under certain circumstances the
    ineffective assistance of a petitioner’s state habeas counsel
    could constitute cause and prejudice for the procedural
    default of a claim asserting ineffective assistance of trial
    counsel.
    In light of Martinez v. Ryan, the district court permitted
    Atwood to file a motion for reconsideration of its prior order
    dismissing Atwood’s ineffective assistance of sentencing
    counsel claim as procedurally barred. Atwood did so. But
    whereas Atwood’s first federal habeas petition had
    characterized the claim as ineffective assistance for failure to
    conduct a thorough investigation of Atwood’s background,
    the motion for reconsideration now claimed that sentencing
    counsel had rendered ineffective assistance by failing to seek
    mental health experts to evaluate Atwood’s mental condition.
    18                   ATWOOD V. RYAN
    In January 2014, after a four-day evidentiary hearing, the
    district court denied the motion for reconsideration on several
    grounds. First, the district court concluded that the
    ineffective assistance of sentencing counsel claim raised in
    Atwood’s motion for reconsideration had not been raised in
    Atwood’s federal habeas petition. It further held that Atwood
    could not amend his habeas petition to add the new claim
    under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
    because the amendment would not relate back to any claim in
    his habeas petition and therefore would be barred by the one-
    year statute of limitations set by the Antiterrorism and
    Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), see 
    28 U.S.C. § 2244
    (d)(1). In the alternative, the district court held that
    Atwood’s revised ineffective assistance of sentencing counsel
    claim was procedurally barred, because Atwood failed to
    establish cause and prejudice to excuse his procedural default
    under Martinez v. Ryan. Finally, even if the requirements of
    Martinez v. Ryan were satisfied, the district court held that
    Atwood’s revised ineffective assistance of sentencing counsel
    claim failed on the merits. The district court did, however,
    expand its certificate of appealability to include this claim.
    Atwood timely filed a notice of appeal, raising the three
    claims for which the district court granted a certificate of
    appealability: the adipocere ineffective assistance of trial
    counsel claim, the ineffective assistance of sentencing
    counsel claim, and the Eighth Amendment claim. He also
    raised the law enforcement misconduct claim, and we granted
    a certificate of appealability.
    ATWOOD V. RYAN                              19
    II
    We review de novo a district court’s decision to deny a
    habeas petition under AEDPA, 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
    . Aguilar v.
    Woodford, 
    725 F.3d 970
    , 972 (9th Cir. 2013).7
    Under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
    (d), a petition for habeas corpus
    pending before a federal court “shall not be granted with
    respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in
    State court proceedings” unless the resulting decision was
    “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of,
    clearly established Federal law, as determined by the
    Supreme Court of the United States,” 
    id.
     § 2254(d)(1), or
    “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in
    light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding,”
    id. § 2254(d)(2). In conducting this inquiry, we look to the
    last reasoned state court decision to address the merits of a
    petitioner’s claim. Gill v. Ayers, 
    342 F.3d 911
    , 917 n.5 (9th
    Cir. 2003).
    Under § 2254(d)(1), “clearly established Federal law”
    includes only the Supreme Court’s decisions in existence “as
    of the time the state court renders its decision.” Greene v.
    Fisher, 
    565 U.S. 34
    , 38 (2011) (emphasis omitted) (citation
    omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly,
    Supreme Court cases decided after the state court’s decision
    are not “clearly established Federal law” under § 2254(d)(1)
    for purposes of evaluating whether the state court
    unreasonably applied such precedent.
    7
    AEDPA applies to Atwood’s federal habeas petition, which was
    filed after April 24, 1996. See Lindh v. Murphy, 
    521 U.S. 320
    , 322, 336
    (1997).
    20                    ATWOOD V. RYAN
    A state court decision is “contrary to” Supreme Court
    authority if “the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to
    that reached by [the Supreme] Court on a question of law or
    if the state court decides a case differently than [the Supreme]
    Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts.”
    Williams v. Taylor, 
    529 U.S. 362
    , 412–13 (2000). A state
    court decision is an unreasonable application of clearly
    established federal law if it “identifies the correct governing
    legal principle from [the Supreme] Court’s decisions but
    unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the
    prisoner’s case.” Lockyer v. Andrade, 
    538 U.S. 63
    , 75 (2003)
    (citation omitted).
    A state court “must reasonably apply the rules ‘squarely
    established’ by [the Supreme] Court’s holdings to the facts”
    of the case before it. White v. Woodall, 
    134 S. Ct. 1697
    , 1706
    (2014) (quoting Knowles v. Mirzayance, 
    556 U.S. 111
    , 122
    (2009)). A rationale that must be extended before it applies
    is not clearly established law, Moses v. Payne, 
    555 F.3d 742
    ,
    754 (9th Cir. 2009), and a state court’s refusal to extend a
    precedent warrants habeas relief “if, and only if, it is so
    obvious that a clearly established rule applies to a given set
    of facts that there could be no fairminded disagreement on the
    question,” Woodall, 
    134 S. Ct. at
    1706–07 (citation omitted)
    (internal quotation marks omitted). “[W]hen a state court
    may draw a principled distinction between the case before it
    and Supreme Court caselaw, the law is not clearly established
    for the state-court case.” Murdoch v. Castro, 
    609 F.3d 983
    ,
    991 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc). As the Supreme Court has
    consistently reminded us, § 2254(d) sets forth a “highly
    deferential standard . . . , which demands that state-court
    decisions be given the benefit of the doubt.” Cullen v.
    Pinholster, 
    563 U.S. 170
    , 181 (2011) (citation omitted)
    (internal quotation marks omitted).
    ATWOOD V. RYAN                         21
    Similarly, under § 2254(d)(2), a federal court “may not
    second-guess” a state court’s factual findings unless “the state
    court was not merely wrong, but actually unreasonable” in
    light of the record before it. Taylor v. Maddox, 
    366 F.3d 992
    ,
    999 (9th Cir. 2004). A state court’s determination of facts
    has been held to be unreasonable under § 2254(d)(2) if “the
    state-court decision is based on a finding [that] is unsupported
    by sufficient evidence; the process employed by the state
    court [wa]s defective; or . . . no finding was made by the state
    court at all, when it was required to make a finding.” Murray
    v. Schriro, 
    745 F.3d 984
    , 999 (9th Cir. 2014) (first and second
    alterations in original) (citation omitted) (internal quotation
    marks omitted). Further, § 2254(e)(1) states that “a
    determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be
    presumed to be correct.” 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
    (e)(1). “[O]ur
    panel decisions appear to be in a state of confusion as to
    whether § 2254(d)(2) or (e)(1), or both, applies to AEDPA
    review of state-court factual findings.” Murray, 745 F.3d at
    1001. However, a court need not address the interaction
    between § 2254(d)(2) and (e)(1) when the petitioner’s claims
    fail to satisfy either provision. See id. (declining to resolve
    the apparent conflict).
    III
    First, we address Atwood’s argument that the Arizona
    Supreme Court’s adjudication of his Eighth Amendment
    claim was contrary to or an unreasonable application of
    clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme
    Court.
    We begin by examining the Supreme Court’s death
    penalty precedent in existence at the time of the Arizona
    Supreme Court’s rejection of Atwood’s claim in 1992.
    22                    ATWOOD V. RYAN
    Greene, 
    565 U.S. at 38
    . Under Furman v. Georgia, 
    408 U.S. 238
     (1972), a state’s death sentencing scheme is
    unconstitutional if it provides insufficient guidance to the
    fact-finder, thereby creating an intolerably high risk of
    discriminatory and arbitrary imposition of the death penalty.
    “A fair statement of the consensus expressed by the Court in
    Furman is that where discretion is afforded a sentencing body
    on a matter so grave as the determination of whether a human
    life should be taken or spared, that discretion must be suitably
    directed and limited so as to minimize the risk of wholly
    arbitrary and capricious action.” Zant v. Stephens, 
    462 U.S. 862
    , 874 (1983) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks
    omitted); see also Gregg v. Georgia, 
    428 U.S. 153
    , 206
    (1976) (plurality opinion) (describing Furman as focused on
    avoiding arbitrary and capricious death sentences by ensuring
    that sentencing authorities were “directed to give attention to
    the nature or circumstances of the crime committed or to the
    character or record of the defendant”).
    At the time the Arizona Supreme Court ruled on
    Atwood’s Eighth Amendment claim, the clearly established
    Supreme Court precedent held that in capital cases, the
    Constitution requires a sentencing body’s discretion to be
    narrowed with respect to two aspects of the process:
    (1) determining whether a defendant is eligible for the death
    penalty (the eligibility requirement) and (2) determining
    whether to impose the death penalty on a particular eligible
    defendant (the selection requirement). See Zant, 
    462 U.S. at
    878–79. A state’s death penalty scheme satisfies the
    eligibility requirement when it directs the sentencing body to
    find at least one aggravating factor that “genuinely narrow[s]
    the class of persons eligible for the death penalty.” 
    Id. at 877
    .
    As Zant summarized the state of the law, aggravating factors
    are constitutionally adequate so long as they (1) are not “so
    ATWOOD V. RYAN                         23
    vague that they would fail adequately to channel the
    sentencing decision,” 
    id.
     (quoting Gregg, 
    428 U.S. at
    195
    n.46 (plurality opinion)), and (2) “reasonably justify the
    imposition of a more severe sentence on the defendant
    compared to others found guilty of murder,” 
    id.
     As for the
    selection requirement, the Eighth Amendment requires “an
    individualized determination on the basis of the character of
    the individual and the circumstances of the crime.” Id. at 879
    (emphasis omitted) (citing, inter alia, Eddings v. Oklahoma,
    
    455 U.S. 104
    , 110–12 (1982) and Lockett v. Ohio, 
    438 U.S. 586
    , 601–05 (1978) (plurality opinion)).              To be
    constitutionally adequate, a state may not preclude the
    sentencing body from considering any proffered aspect of the
    defendant’s character or record, or any circumstances of the
    offense, as a mitigating factor. Eddings, 
    455 U.S. at 110
    .
    Atwood’s argument relates to the requirement that the
    state adequately narrow eligibility for the death penalty. He
    contends that the determination of his eligibility based on the
    aggravating factor codified at section 13-703(F)(1) was
    unconstitutionally arbitrary. According to Atwood, section
    13-703(F)(1) was intended to identify a class of the worst
    offenders who committed the most serious offenses. Because
    Arizona subsequently determined that the conduct underlying
    Atwood’s prior conviction was not so serious as to warrant a
    life sentence, Atwood claims that social standards have
    evolved such that he cannot now be executed on account of
    prior lewd conduct with a child. In other words, Atwood
    argues that it would be arbitrary to execute him based on
    aggravating conduct that society no longer deems to be the
    worst and that does not reasonably distinguish him from other
    offenders who had committed prior offenses that did not
    make them death eligible.
    24                    ATWOOD V. RYAN
    We reject this claim because the Arizona Supreme
    Court’s decision was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable
    application of clearly established federal law as determined
    by the Supreme Court. At the time the state court rendered its
    decision, there was no Supreme Court case invalidating an
    aggravating factor similar to the section 13-703(F)(1) factor.
    Nor had the Supreme Court invalidated an aggravating factor
    relating to a prior conviction because the state had
    subsequently changed the penalties imposable for such a
    conviction. (Indeed, the Supreme Court has still not
    addressed such issues.) Therefore, in rejecting Atwood’s
    claim, the Arizona Supreme Court did not arrive at a
    conclusion opposite to that reached by the Supreme Court on
    materially indistinguishable facts.
    Nor did the Arizona Supreme Court unreasonably apply
    clearly established federal law. Furman and Gregg
    established a general rule that turns on individualized
    examinations of death penalty schemes. See Zant, 
    462 U.S. at
    875 (citing Gregg, 
    428 U.S. at 195
     (plurality opinion)).
    When applying such general rules, courts have “more leeway
    . . . in reaching outcomes in case-by-case determinations.”
    Yarborough v. Alvarado, 
    541 U.S. 652
    , 664 (2004). Under
    AEDPA, “a state court [applying a general standard] has even
    more latitude to reasonably determine that a defendant has
    not satisfied that standard.” Mirzayance, 
    556 U.S. at 123
    .
    Here, the state court could reasonably have concluded that
    section 13-703(F)(1) meets the requirements set forth in
    Furman and Gregg for guiding a sentencing body’s decision
    as to death eligibility. First, the factor is not “so vague” that
    it fails to narrow the eligibility decision adequately; rather,
    section 13-703(F)(1) uses a “clear and objective” selection
    criterion that offers specific guidance. Godfrey v. Georgia,
    ATWOOD V. RYAN                         25
    
    446 U.S. 420
    , 428 (1980) (plurality opinion). Second, the
    Arizona Supreme Court could have reasonably concluded that
    section 13-703(F)(1) is not arbitrary and “reasonably
    justif[ies] the imposition of a more severe sentence on the
    defendant compared to others found guilty of murder.” Zant,
    
    462 U.S. at 877
    . Contrary to Atwood’s claim that Arizona
    uses section 13-703(F)(1) to identify its worst criminals, a
    concept that may change over time as society evolves, the
    Arizona Supreme Court interprets its death penalty statute as
    having the purpose of determining “the character and
    propensities of the defendant.” State v. Gretzler, 
    135 Ariz. 42
    , 57 n.2 (1983) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks
    omitted). Accordingly, the state court could have reasonably
    concluded that section 13-703(F)(1) identified an important
    propensity factor, namely the defendant’s willingness to
    engage in criminal behavior that society deemed at the time
    to be the most serious, thereby risking life imprisonment or
    death. Cf. Jurek v. Texas, 
    428 U.S. 262
    , 272–76 (1976)
    (plurality opinion) (holding that the sentencer’s consideration
    of whether “the defendant would be a continuing threat to
    society” does not lead to arbitrary imposition of the death
    penalty). The Arizona Supreme Court’s conclusion that this
    propensity factor rationally narrows the pool of defendants
    who are death eligible compared to others found guilty of
    murder (regardless whether the state later decides to impose
    only lesser sentences on that offense) is not contrary to or an
    unreasonable application of the Supreme Court’s general
    guidance in Furman and Gregg.
    IV
    We next turn to Atwood’s law enforcement misconduct
    claim. The state habeas court dismissed without an
    evidentiary hearing Atwood’s claim that FBI agents and Pima
    26                    ATWOOD V. RYAN
    County investigators planted pink paint from Vicki’s bicycle
    on the bumper of his car. The state court determined that
    there was no colorable basis for the claim and that Atwood’s
    theory lacked any “link to provable reality.” On appeal,
    Atwood argues that the state court made an unreasonable
    determination of the facts, see 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
    (d)(2), by
    failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on this claim.
    A state court does not have to “conduct an evidentiary
    hearing to resolve every disputed factual question.” Hibbler
    v. Benedetti, 
    693 F.3d 1140
    , 1147 (9th Cir. 2012). The
    “ultimate question” is whether a state court was
    “unreasonable in holding that an evidentiary hearing was not
    necessary in light of the state court record.” 
    Id. at 1148
    (emphasis omitted). We have held that a state court’s failure
    to hold an evidentiary hearing is not unreasonable under
    § 2254(d)(2) “where the allegations are said to be incredible
    in light of the record,” or where the “petitioner’s factual
    allegations are entirely without credibility.” Perez v. Rosario,
    
    459 F.3d 943
    , 950–51 (9th Cir. 2006). Nor does a state
    court’s failure to hold an evidentiary hearing make its factual
    findings unreasonable “when the record already before the
    court is said to establish a fact conclusively,” or “there is no
    likelihood that an evidentiary hearing would have affected the
    determination of the state court.” 
    Id.
    In evaluating whether a state court erred in its fact-finding
    process, we may look to the rules governing when a district
    court must conduct an evidentiary hearing, because “if a
    district court would be within its discretion in denying an
    evidentiary hearing, a state court’s similar decision is
    probably not objectively unreasonable.” Hibbler, 693 F.3d at
    1148. Nevertheless, our review of a state court’s decision not
    to conduct an evidentiary hearing is much more deferential.
    ATWOOD V. RYAN                       27
    “[W]e may not ‘second-guess a state court’s fact-finding
    process’ unless we determine ‘that the state court was not
    merely wrong, but actually unreasonable.’” Id. (quoting
    Taylor, 
    366 F.3d at 999
    ).
    In order to determine whether the state court here was
    objectively unreasonable in failing to conduct an evidentiary
    hearing, we must first explain Atwood’s theory of law
    enforcement misconduct. Under Atwood’s theory, Pima
    County investigators, in collusion with the FBI, removed both
    bumpers from Atwood’s car in San Antonio and transported
    the bumpers as luggage on a commercial airline to Tucson.
    These investigators then scraped pink paint off Vicki’s
    bicycle (which was in Tucson at the time) and planted it on
    the front bumper of Atwood’s car. Next, the investigators
    collected scrapings from the pink paint they had applied to
    the bumpers, combined these scrapings with scrapings taken
    by the FBI from an unrelated pink paint smear on the bumper,
    and substituted the combined sample in the evidence log.
    The Pima County investigators then used water-soluble paint
    to cover up the scrape marks created while collecting the
    sample, transported the bumpers from Tucson back to the
    FBI’s impound garage in San Antonio, and reattached the
    bumpers to Atwood’s car. Once the bumpers were
    reattached, the agents took photos of the pink paint on the
    bumpers and then substituted these photos for original photos
    in the Kerrville and San Antonio Suites to cover up their
    actions.
    Atwood supports his theory by pointing to alleged
    anomalies in three different suites of photos (the Kerrville
    Suite, the San Antonio Suite, and a third suite of undated
    photos taken in Tucson, which we refer to as the Tucson
    28                         ATWOOD V. RYAN
    Suite), which he claims raise inferences of law enforcement
    misconduct.
    A
    We first consider the alleged anomalies in the Kerrville
    Suite of photos.8
    The record establishes that FBI agents conducted an
    initial inspection of Atwood’s car at the garage in Kerrville
    on September 20, and that FBI Agent Hoffman took photos
    of the car. Frame 9 of the Kerrville Suite shows pink paint on
    the passenger side front bumper.
    Atwood alleges that Frame 9 was taken in San Antonio
    (after the FBI tampered with the car to add pink paint from
    Vicki’s bicycle to the bumper, as explained above) and the
    FBI substituted Frame 9 for the original photo. From this
    alleged evidence of tampering, Atwood claims, it can be
    inferred that pink paint from Vicki’s bicycle was not present
    on the bumper of Atwood’s Datsun when the FBI took
    custody of the car in Kerrville.9
    8
    See Appendix, pp. 58–61 (select photos from the Kerrville Suite).
    9
    Atwood’s theory on this point has evolved through the course of the
    litigation. Initially, Atwood’s memorandum submitted in support of his
    second state habeas petition argued that there was no pink paint on the
    bumper of his car when he was arrested Under this theory, Atwood
    claimed that Agent Burwitz collected paint from the bumper of the car, but
    it was not pink. According to Atwood’s theory at that time, the scrapings
    entered into the evidence collection log were replaced with later-obtained
    pink paint scrapings, requiring evidence log entries to be altered. Atwood
    later conceded that there was pink paint on his bumper at the time of his
    arrest, but he now claims it was not pink paint from Vicki’s bicycle.
    ATWOOD V. RYAN                         29
    Atwood points to the following evidence to support this
    allegation. First, Hill made a digital photo enhancement of
    Frame 9. Hill claims the enhancement shows that the right
    side of the front bumper in Frame 9 is “specularly clean and
    reflective” compared to the left side of the front bumper in
    Frame 1, which is “grimy, dirty and splattered with dead
    gnats and other insects.”10 According to Atwood, the
    differences in the cleanliness of the bumper establish that
    Frame 9 was taken at a different time than the rest of the
    Kerrville Suite. Second, Atwood submitted an affidavit from
    Hulick stating that Frame 9 “does not appear to be a part of
    the same set of photographs” because it is “in sharper focus
    and taken from a noticeably different angle than the other
    photographs.” The government gave Atwood sequential
    negatives of these photos, but Hill stated that “[t]hese images
    are not ‘original negatives’ as that term is usually
    understood.” Instead, according to Hill, “they are negatives
    made from other negatives or photographic positives.”
    (Hulick did not opine on this issue.)
    Based on our review of the record, the state court could
    have reasonably concluded that Atwood’s claim that law
    enforcement had tampered with the Kerrville Suite was not
    credible. First, on their face, the enhanced photos do not
    show that the right side of the front bumper pictured in Frame
    9 is cleaner than the left side of the front bumper pictured in
    Frame 1. Moreover, the mere fact that Frame 9 was taken at
    a different angle than the other Kerrville photos does not raise
    the inference that it was falsified. Indeed, the majority of the
    photos in the Kerrville Suite are taken from differing angles.
    Atwood presents nothing more than “conclusory allegations”
    10
    See Appendix, p. 61 (comparing Frame 1 and Frame 9 of the
    Kerrville Suite).
    30                          ATWOOD V. RYAN
    that are “unsupported by facts and refuted by the record,”
    which we have repeatedly held is insufficient to entitle a
    petitioner to an evidentiary hearing. Farrow v. United States,
    
    580 F.2d 1339
    , 1360–61 (9th Cir. 1978) (en banc).
    The state court could also reasonably discount the
    testimony of Hill and Hulick. The state court’s conclusion
    that Hill’s evidence was not competent under Arizona law
    was not an unreasonable application of Supreme Court
    precedent nor an unreasonable determination of the facts,
    given Hill’s lack of specialized knowledge. Moreover,
    Hulick’s testimony was merely an inference from the
    evidence that the court could reasonably reject.
    B
    Next, we consider Atwood’s claim that law enforcement
    tampered with the San Antonio Suite.
    Witnesses for the government provided the following
    evidence regarding the events in San Antonio. On September
    21, 1984, the FBI transported Atwood’s car from Kerrville to
    an FBI impound garage in San Antonio. Two Pima County
    investigators (McCarter and Dhaemers) flew into San
    Antonio on a commercial airline the same day. On
    September 22, FBI Agent Burwitz and four other FBI agents
    inspected Atwood’s car, which had been cordoned off in the
    FBI’s impound garage. FBI agents collected evidence from
    the car, including scrapings of pink paint from the front
    bumper. McCarter and Dhaemers were prohibited from
    touching the car, but observed the FBI activities. The
    investigations were documented in numerous photos.11
    11
    See Appendix, p. 62 (select photos from the San Antonio Suite).
    ATWOOD V. RYAN                           31
    According to Atwood, the photos in the San Antonio
    Suite showing pink paint on the car’s bumper were not taken
    in San Antonio on September 22. Rather, Atwood alleges
    that these photos were taken later, after the Pima County
    investigators fabricated evidence in Tucson, returned the
    bumpers to the FBI impound garage in San Antonio, and
    reattached the bumpers.
    Atwood supports this theory as follows. First, Atwood
    states that a “close dimensional analysis” establishes that four
    of the photos (one of which shows pink paint on Atwood’s
    front bumper) were not taken on September 22 with the other
    San Antonio photos. Atwood next relies on an affidavit from
    Hill, which states that one pre-scraping photo from the San
    Antonio Suite, “when enhanced[,] reveals the existence of
    scrape marks beneath the surface of the paint.” Finally,
    Atwood points to a photo in the Kerrville Suite that shows a
    smooth bumper cowling, and a photo in the San Antonio
    Suite that shows the cowling slightly out of alignment.12
    Hulick states that comparing Exhibit 26-1 (Frame 1 taken in
    Kerrville on September 20) to Exhibit 25-10 (taken in San
    Antonio) “clearly shows that the bumper and its attached
    cowling are in a different position from one photograph to
    another,” which she claims supports Atwood’s contention that
    the bumper was removed and reattached.
    After reviewing the record, we conclude that the state
    court reasonably determined that Atwood’s claim that Pima
    County investigators tampered with the San Antonio Suite
    was not credible. Atwood does not explain or support his
    contention that a “close dimensional analysis” proves that the
    12
    See Appendix, p. 63 (comparing Frame 26-1 from the Kerrville
    Suite with Frame 25-10 from the San Antonio Suite).
    32                        ATWOOD V. RYAN
    photographs in the San Antonio Suite were “[c]ounterfeit
    [a]dditions.” Nor does the evidence substantiate Atwood’s
    claim that a water-soluble paint was affixed to the bumper
    and then removed to enable false pre-scraping photos to be
    taken. Given Hill’s lack of expertise, the state court
    reasonably discounted his affidavit regarding the existence of
    scrape marks beneath the surface of the paint, which are not
    visible in the photo. Although the Kerrville and San Antonio
    Suites show a change in the alignment of the bumper
    cowling, the change does not raise the inference that the
    bumpers were removed in San Antonio, transported to
    Tucson, transported back to San Antonio, and then
    reattached.13
    C
    Finally, we consider Atwood’s claim that a series of
    unmarked and undated photos taken on the Pima County
    Sheriff’s loading dock in Tucson (the Tucson Suite) shows
    investigators planting pink paint from Vicki’s bicycle on the
    bumper of Atwood’s car.
    According to the undisputed facts, Vicki’s bicycle
    remained in Tucson until law enforcement agents shipped it
    to the FBI laboratory in Washington, D.C., on September 25,
    1984. The bicycle arrived at the FBI laboratory on
    September 26. Also on September 26, the FBI loaded
    Atwood’s car into a trailer for transportation from the FBI’s
    San Antonio impound garage to Tucson. The trailer arrived
    13
    Larmour, the State’s reconstruction expert, testified that the cowling
    was “a flexible portion in the bumper guard” that could readily fall out of
    alignment if a nut became loose or fell off. Larmour saw “no indication
    that [the bumper] was taken off and reattached.”
    ATWOOD V. RYAN                         33
    in Tucson the next day, and the Pima County Sheriff’s
    Department took custody of the car. In October 1984, the
    Pima Country Sheriff’s Department sent the bumper of
    Atwood’s car to the FBI. The bumper was returned to
    Tucson in March 1985, and Couser took photos of the
    bumper when it arrived in Tucson. (This set of photos is
    referred to as the Couser Suite.)
    Atwood contends that an evaluation of the Tucson and
    Couser Suites establishes that the bumpers and the bicycle
    were together on the Pima County Sheriff’s loading dock in
    Tucson before March 1985 and also shows that investigators
    planted the pink paint on the bumper of Atwood’s car. To
    support this theory, Atwood points to one of the Tucson Suite
    photos showing a car’s chrome bumper, and argues that the
    shiny surface of the bumper reflects a man holding a pink
    bicycle.14 According to Atwood, this reflection establishes
    that the bicycle and the bumpers were together in Tucson at
    the same time. Although it is undisputed that the bicycle and
    bumper were together in Tucson in March 1985, Atwood
    argues that the Tucson Suite was taken earlier, because the
    bumper looks cleaner in the Couser Suite than in the Tucson
    Suite, indicating it had been cleaned in the FBI laboratory.15
    Next, Atwood argues that because Vicki’s bicycle was
    shipped to Washington, D.C., on September 25, the Tucson
    Suite must have been taken before that date. Based on these
    assumptions, Atwood claims the Tucson Suite gives rise to
    the inference that investigators shipped the bumpers from
    14
    See Appendix, pp. 64–68 (select Tucson Suite photos and an
    enhanced image that purportedly shows a pink bicycle).
    15
    Compare Appendix, pp. 64–67 (Tucson Suite photos) with
    Appendix, p. 69 (Couser Suite photo).
    34                   ATWOOD V. RYAN
    Atwood’s car to Tucson between September 22 and 25, 1984
    to fabricate the pink paint evidence.
    Atwood’s claims are not credible in light of the record.
    Even with photographic enhancements, it is not possible to
    discern the reflection of a man holding a pink bicycle in the
    car’s bumper. Moreover, the resolution, quality, lighting, and
    angles of the Tucson Suite and Couser Suite are substantially
    different, making it impossible to conclude that the bumper
    as photographed in the Couser Suite is cleaner than the
    bumper as photographed in the Tucson Suite. Because both
    inferences (the presence of the bicycle and the difference in
    the cleanliness of the bumpers) are necessary to support
    Atwood’s theory that the Tucson Suite photos were taken
    before September 25, 1984, the state court could reasonably
    conclude that Atwood’s allegations were not credible and a
    hearing would not have affected the court’s determination.
    D
    The general implausibility of Atwood’s theory further
    supports our conclusion that the state court was not
    unreasonable in declining to hold an evidentiary hearing.
    Under Atwood’s theory, FBI agents colluded with Pima
    County investigators to remove and ship the bumpers to
    Tucson, insert staged photos, and mix paint samples to be
    sent to the FBI laboratory, despite the fact that Atwood’s car
    already had a pink paint mark on the bumper. At the time of
    the alleged fabrication, law enforcement officers could
    reasonably expect the pink paint found on Atwood’s car to
    match the paint on Vicki’s bicycle and therefore would have
    had no incentive to plant additional pink paint on Atwood’s
    bumper. Moreover, as the district court pointed out, there
    was no reason for the Pima County investigators, as part of a
    ATWOOD V. RYAN                        35
    clandestine operation, to take both bumpers to Tucson (when
    they needed only one for the alleged fabrication), to check
    these bulky items as baggage on a commercial airline, or to
    take photos of the bumpers during the fabrication process.
    Further, there does not seem to be any reason for the Pima
    County investigators to apply the pink paint to the bumper,
    scrape it off, mix the scrapings with scrapings of the other
    pink paint scraped from the bumper, and cover the scraped
    bumper with additional pink paint to cover the scrapings.
    Even more generally, at the time of this alleged misconduct,
    law enforcement authorities were in the midst of an
    investigation that might uncover further evidence. Indeed,
    the officers did not know at that time whether Vicki was alive
    or dead. Atwood’s claim that at this point state and federal
    officers would have concocted an elaborate plot to fabricate
    evidence is simply not credible.
    In sum, because Atwood’s allegations regarding law
    enforcement misconduct are “incredible in light of the
    record,” and a hearing would not have affected the state
    court’s determination, the state court’s failure to hold an
    evidentiary hearing was not unreasonable under § 2254(d)(2).
    Perez, 
    459 F.3d at 950
    .
    E
    As a subsidiary argument, Atwood also contends that the
    state court erred in not holding an evidentiary hearing on his
    claim that the State’s accident reconstruction expert, Paul
    Larmour, fabricated evidence indicating that the markings
    and indentation on the car’s gravel pan matched the pedal of
    Vicki’s bicycle.
    36                        ATWOOD V. RYAN
    The record establishes that in September 1985, Larmour
    conducted an accident reconstruction to determine if physical
    evidence supported the State’s theory that Atwood’s car had
    run into Vicki’s bicycle in Tucson. Larmour testified that the
    “marks on the car’s gravel pan were consistent with the
    theory that it struck the bicycle at a low speed and caused the
    bike to lodge beneath the car.” Atwood, 
    171 Ariz. at 595
    .
    Atwood contends that the markings and indentation on the
    car’s gravel pan did not exist at the time it was examined in
    San Antonio and must have been placed there during
    Larmour’s accident reconstruction one year later.
    Atwood’s own evidence refutes this claim. Atwood
    points to photos taken before and after the reconstruction.16
    The “before” photos show scrapes and markings, as well as
    a slight indentation, on the gravel pan. The “after” photos
    arguably show more scrapes and markings and a slightly
    more prominent indentation. But such additional damage is
    consistent with Larmour having conducted an accident
    reconstruction. Because Atwood presents no evidence of
    fabrication of the “before” photos, which undisputedly show
    scrapings and indentation, the state court did not err in
    declining to conduct an evidentiary hearing on Atwood’s law
    enforcement misconduct claim.17
    16
    Compare Appendix, p. 70 (photos from before reconstruction) with
    Appendix, p. 71 (photo from after reconstruction).
    17
    Atwood argues that the district court also erred in failing to conduct
    an evidentiary hearing on his fabrication claim. This argument is
    meritless; where AEDPA applies to a habeas petition, as it does here, a
    district court is limited to considering the state court record unless the
    petitioner satisfies the requirements of § 2254(d). See Pinholster,
    
    563 U.S. at
    185 n.7.
    ATWOOD V. RYAN                         37
    V
    We next turn to Atwood’s two ineffective assistance of
    counsel claims. The clearly established federal law for
    ineffective assistance of counsel claims is Strickland v.
    Washington, 
    466 U.S. 668
     (1984). See Pinholster, 
    563 U.S. at 189
    . To establish ineffective assistance of counsel under
    Strickland, a petitioner must prove (1) that “counsel’s
    performance was deficient,” and (2) that “the deficient
    performance prejudiced the defense.” 
    466 U.S. at 687
    .
    Performance is deficient when counsel’s representation
    falls “below an objective standard of reasonableness” and is
    therefore outside of “the range of competence demanded of
    attorneys in criminal cases.” 
    Id.
     at 687–88 (citation omitted).
    Counsel’s performance can be deficient if counsel fails to
    conduct a sufficient investigation, but it is not deficient if
    counsel reasonably decides to limit the investigation. 
    Id.
     at
    690–91.      Counsel may reasonably base investigation
    decisions on information supplied by the defendant. 
    Id. at 691
    . We apply “a heavy measure of deference to counsel’s
    judgments” regarding the scope of an investigation, 
    id.,
     and
    presume “that counsel’s attention to certain issues to the
    exclusion of others reflects trial tactics rather than sheer
    neglect,” Harrington v. Richter, 
    562 U.S. 86
    , 109 (2011)
    (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). When
    evaluating counsel’s choices, we must make “every effort . . .
    to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct
    the circumstances of counsel’s challenged conduct, and to
    evaluate the conduct from counsel’s perspective at the time.”
    Strickland, 
    466 U.S. at 689
    . “[C]ounsel should be strongly
    presumed to have rendered adequate assistance and made all
    significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable
    38                    ATWOOD V. RYAN
    professional judgment.” Pinholster, 
    563 U.S. at 189
     (citation
    omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
    Counsel’s deficient performance is prejudicial if “there is
    a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional
    errors, the result of the proceeding would have been
    different.” Strickland, 
    466 U.S. at 694
    . More specifically,
    “[w]hen a defendant challenges a conviction, the question is
    whether there is a reasonable probability that, absent the
    errors, the factfinder would have had a reasonable doubt
    respecting guilt.” 
    Id. at 695
    . And when a defendant
    challenges a death sentence, “the question is whether there is
    a reasonable probability that, absent the errors, the sentencer
    . . . would have concluded that the balance of aggravating and
    mitigating circumstances did not warrant death.” 
    Id.
     “The
    likelihood of a different result must be substantial, not just
    conceivable.” Richter, 
    562 U.S. at 112
    .
    “Under AEDPA, we do not apply the Strickland standard
    de novo.” Gulbrandson v. Ryan, 
    738 F.3d 976
    , 988 (9th Cir.
    2013). “The pivotal question is whether the state court’s
    application of the Strickland standard was unreasonable.”
    Richter, 
    562 U.S. at 101
    . “The standards created by
    Strickland and § 2254(d) are both highly deferential, and
    when the two apply in tandem, review is doubly so.” Id. at
    105 (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
    A
    We first consider Atwood’s adipocere ineffective
    assistance of trial counsel claim. Atwood argues that Bloom
    rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to
    develop information regarding the adipocere on Vicki’s
    bones, which would have allowed Bloom to challenge the
    ATWOOD V. RYAN                         39
    State’s chronology implicating Atwood in the murder.
    According to Atwood, the state habeas court’s rejection of
    this claim was an unreasonable application of Strickland.
    Under the State’s theory of the case, Atwood murdered
    Vicki some time after 3:30 p.m. on the afternoon of
    September 17, 1984, dumped her body in the desert, and
    returned to De Anza Park approximately one hour before
    sunset. In explaining the presence of adipocere on Vicki’s
    bones, Froede, one of the State’s experts, testified that
    adipocere takes two to six months to develop and that the
    climatic records showed “a good deal of rain” in late
    September 1984 after Vicki’s disappearance, which would
    have allowed the formation of adipocere on her bones.
    Following his conviction, Atwood obtained the testimony
    of a new expert, Dr. Kris Lee Sperry, who reviewed the trial
    testimony and evidence from post-mortem examinations
    conducted in this case and concluded that the adipocere on
    Vicki’s remains could be formed only if Vicki had been
    buried in the ground to a depth of at least one foot. Atwood
    argues that because it would have taken several hours to bury
    Vicki’s body to that depth in the hard desert soil, he would
    not have had time to dig a grave and return to De Anza Park
    approximately an hour before sunset.             Had Bloom
    investigated the adipocere issue and found evidence of burial
    of the remains, Atwood contends, it would have undermined
    the State’s timeline. Therefore, Atwood’s petition to the state
    court argued that Bloom’s “[f]ailure to discover the existence
    of the grave amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel.”
    The state court rejected this argument, holding that
    Atwood did not carry “his burden of proving that there ever
    was a grave” and therefore “the factual predicate for this
    40                    ATWOOD V. RYAN
    claim of failure on the part of Mr. Bloom to discover a grave
    also fails.” The court also rejected Sperry’s testimony as
    contrary to the facts of the case and inconsistent with credible
    sources. The opinion states:
    In drawing the conclusion that the victim’s
    body must have been buried (because of the
    existence of adipocere) and that the skeletal
    remains must have been later exhumed by a
    human, Dr. Sperry’s opinion fails to consider
    the known evidence, such as the weather
    conditions recorded at the weather station
    closest to the site where the remains were
    found, the absence of tool marks on the
    skeletal remains, and the absence of dirt
    imbedded in the openings of the bones and
    skull.
    Further, the court found that Sperry’s opinion was contrary to
    the published articles of other experts. The court concluded
    that “[b]ecause the factual basis for his opinion is
    contradicted by other credible sources, the probative value of
    Dr. Sperry’s opinion is minimal” and that Atwood “failed to
    show that Dr. Sperry’s opinion evidence probably would have
    changed the jury’s verdict.”
    We review Atwood’s adipocere ineffective assistance of
    counsel claim “[u]nder the doubly deferential judicial review
    that applies to a Strickland claim evaluated under the
    § 2254(d)(1) standard,” Mirzayance, 
    556 U.S. at 123
    , and
    hold that the state court reasonably applied both the
    deficiency and prejudice prongs of Strickland.
    ATWOOD V. RYAN                        41
    First, the state court reasonably applied Strickland in
    holding that Bloom’s performance was not deficient. Bloom
    had “a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a
    reasonable decision that makes particular investigations
    unnecessary.” Strickland, 
    466 U.S. at 691
    . The state court
    could reasonably conclude that Bloom fulfilled these duties.
    Prior to trial, Bloom reviewed the report written by Keen, one
    of the two experts hired by Couser. He also hired four
    additional experts, and questioned both of the State’s experts
    about adipocere. None of the numerous pathologists and
    anthropologists who examined the remains before trial
    indicated that burial was a precondition to adipocere
    formation. In an interview at the state medical examiner’s
    office, the State’s experts told Bloom and the prosecutor that
    there was “no indication of burial.” Under the “heavy
    measure of deference” afforded to counsel’s judgments under
    Strickland, the state court could reasonably conclude that
    Bloom made a reasonable decision not to further investigate
    a burial theory. See Strickland, 
    466 U.S. at 691
    ; see also
    Wiggins v. Smith, 
    539 U.S. 510
    , 533 (2003) (holding that
    “Strickland does not require counsel to investigate every
    conceivable line of mitigating evidence” or every possible
    defense).
    The state court could also have concluded that Bloom
    adopted a reasonable defense strategy at trial by seeking to
    discredit the use of adipocere by Froede and Birkby to
    estimate Vicki’s time of death. Bloom succeeded in eliciting
    testimony from the State’s experts that adipocere cannot be
    used in isolation to develop a precise timeline for the
    decomposition of remains. Moreover, the State’s experts
    conceded that the remains could have been deposited in the
    desert as late as February 1985 or as early as April 1984. In
    closing argument, Bloom relied on these concessions to argue
    42                        ATWOOD V. RYAN
    that “maybe [Vicki] didn’t die right out there at that time,”
    and to suggest that she could have died at a later date or her
    body could have been placed in the desert at a later date.
    Given the deference to counsel’s judgment and strategy
    required by Strickland, the state court did not unreasonably
    apply Strickland in concluding that Bloom adopted a
    reasonable strategy with respect to the adipocere evidence.
    Second, the state court reasonably applied Strickland in
    holding that Bloom’s allegedly deficient performance was not
    prejudicial. Given the “totality of the evidence” before the
    jury and the disputed nature of the potential testimony, the
    state court could reasonably have determined that there was
    no “reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s
    unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have
    been different.” Strickland, 
    466 U.S. at
    694–95. The state
    court could have reasonably determined that Atwood’s theory
    that Vicki’s body had been buried was not strong, given that
    the State and defense experts who examined the bones found
    no indications of burial and that Sperry’s opinion failed to
    rely on known evidence and was contradicted by credible
    sources.18 Conversely, the jury heard significant evidence
    linking Atwood to the crime. The jury heard testimony that
    Atwood’s car was seen at Vicki’s school the day of her
    disappearance, Atwood, 
    171 Ariz. at
    592–93; Atwood was
    seen driving a Datsun in Vicki’s neighborhood before she
    disappeared, 
    id. at 593
    ; and Atwood was seen leaving Vicki’s
    neighborhood with a small child in his car, 
    id. at 595
    .
    18
    In his reply brief, Atwood argues that the State’s experts would
    have testified that burial was a necessary precondition to the formation of
    adipocere and that Vicki must have been buried. This argument is
    meritless. The State’s experts stated shortly before trial, and after trial,
    that burial was not a necessary precondition to the formation of adipocere.
    ATWOOD V. RYAN                               43
    Testimony also placed Atwood in the vicinity of the site
    where Vicki’s remains were found, 
    id.,
     and witnesses testified
    that they saw Atwood with a knife and with blood on his
    hands and clothes on the afternoon of Vicki’s disappearance,
    
    id. at 596
    . The jury also heard evidence that Atwood had
    admitted he was attracted to children and had told Bernsienne
    that the next time he picked up a child, he would make sure
    that the child did not talk. 
    Id.
     Finally, physical evidence
    linked Atwood’s car to Vicki’s bicycle. 
    Id. at 595
    .19 Given
    the weakness of the evidence supporting Atwood’s adipocere
    claim and the strength of the evidence against Atwood, the
    state court reasonably found that any deficient performance
    by Bloom did not give rise to a “reasonable probability that,
    absent the errors, the factfinder would have had a reasonable
    doubt respecting guilt.” Strickland, 
    466 U.S. at 695
    .20
    19
    On appeal, Atwood contends that a court should not consider the
    physical evidence linking Atwood to Vicki’s bicycle because it was a
    product of law enforcement misconduct. As we have already indicated,
    the state court did not err in concluding that the law enforcement
    misconduct claim was not credible.
    20
    Atwood states that “[t]he state court’s decision was an unreasonable
    determination of facts,” but does not develop this argument; therefore, it
    is waived. Christian Legal Soc. Chapter of Univ. of Cal. v. Wu, 
    626 F.3d 483
    , 487 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). In any event, the state court was
    not required to hold an evidentiary hearing because “the record refutes
    [Atwood’s] factual allegations or otherwise precludes habeas relief.”
    Hibbler, 693 F.3d at 1148 (quoting Schriro v. Landrigan, 
    550 U.S. 465
    ,
    474 (2007)).
    Atwood also argues that the district court erred in failing to conduct
    an evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed issues of fact. Again, this
    argument fails under Pinholster, 
    563 U.S. at
    185 n.7.
    44                    ATWOOD V. RYAN
    B
    We now turn to Atwood’s ineffective assistance of
    sentencing counsel claim. Atwood argues that Bloom
    rendered ineffective assistance by failing to present evidence
    from mental health experts regarding Atwood’s drug abuse
    and the traumatic effects of his childhood molestation.
    Atwood acknowledges that he failed to raise this claim to the
    state court, and that it is procedurally defaulted.
    Nevertheless, Atwood argues that he has met the
    requirements set forth in Martinez v. Ryan, 
    566 U.S. at
    9–10,
    to overcome the procedural default. Atwood asserts that the
    district court erred in rejecting this argument.
    “Federal review is generally not available for a state
    prisoner’s claims when those claims have been denied
    pursuant to an independent and adequate state procedural
    rule.” Clabourne v. Ryan, 
    745 F.3d 362
    , 375 (9th Cir. 2014),
    overruled in part on other grounds, McKinney v. Ryan,
    
    813 F.3d 798
     (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc). A state prisoner may
    be able to obtain federal habeas review of a procedurally
    defaulted claim if “the prisoner can demonstrate cause for the
    default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation
    of federal law.” Coleman v. Thompson, 
    501 U.S. 722
    , 750
    (1991). “An attorney error does not qualify as ‘cause’ to
    excuse a procedural default unless the error amounted to
    constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel.” Davila v.
    Davis, 
    137 S. Ct. 2058
    , 2062 (2017). “Because a prisoner
    does not have a constitutional right to counsel in state
    postconviction proceedings,” as a general rule “ineffective
    assistance in those proceedings does not qualify as cause to
    excuse a procedural default.” 
    Id.
     (citing Coleman, 
    501 U.S. 722
    ).
    ATWOOD V. RYAN                                 45
    The Supreme Court has created a “narrow, equitable . . .
    qualification” of this rule. Id. at 2065 (alteration in original)
    (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Where
    a prisoner fails to raise an ineffective assistance of trial
    counsel claim in state court, “a procedural default will not bar
    a federal habeas court from hearing a substantial claim of
    ineffective assistance at trial” if (1) “state law requires
    prisoners to raise claims of ineffective assistance of trial
    counsel in an initial-review collateral proceeding,” id.
    (emphasis added) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks
    omitted), and (2) “the default results from the ineffective
    assistance of the prisoner’s counsel in the collateral
    proceeding,” id.21 A claim of ineffective assistance of trial
    counsel is “substantial” if the prisoner demonstrates that “the
    claim has some merit.” Martinez v. Ryan, 
    566 U.S. at 14
    .
    In evaluating whether the failure to raise a substantial
    claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in state court
    21
    Trevino v. Thaler described this narrow exception as allowing a
    federal habeas court to find “cause to excuse [a defendant’s] procedural
    default,” 
    133 S. Ct. 1911
    , 1917 (2013) (emphasis added) (citation
    omitted), but did not indicate whether the federal habeas court was also
    required to find “actual prejudice as a result of the alleged constitutional
    violations” in order to overcome the procedural default, Coleman,
    
    501 U.S. at 745
    . We subsequently held that under Martinez v. Ryan, a
    prisoner satisfies the prejudice prong of the “cause and prejudice”
    standard for overcoming a procedural default when the prisoner’s claim
    of trial-level ineffective assistance of counsel claim is substantial. See
    Detrich v. Ryan, 
    740 F.3d 1237
    , 1245–46, 1261 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc);
    see also Clabourne, 745 F.3d at 377 (interpreting Detrich as reaching this
    conclusion based on the agreement of nine of the eleven judges in separate
    opinions). This analysis is consistent with Davila, which provides that “a
    procedural default will not bar a federal habeas court from hearing a
    substantial claim of ineffective assistance at trial” if the “cause” prong set
    forth in Trevino is satisfied. Davila, 137 S. Ct. at 2065 (citation omitted).
    46                       ATWOOD V. RYAN
    resulted from ineffective assistance of state habeas counsel
    under Strickland, we must evaluate the strength of the
    prisoner’s underlying ineffective assistance of trial counsel
    claim. If the ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim
    lacks merit, then the state habeas counsel would not have
    been deficient for failing to raise it. Further, any deficient
    performance by state habeas counsel would not have been
    prejudicial, because there would not be a reasonable
    probability that the result of the post-conviction proceedings
    would have been different if the meritless claim had been
    raised. Clabourne, 745 F.3d at 377 (“The reasonable
    probability that the result of the post-conviction proceedings
    would have been different, absent deficient performance by
    post-conviction counsel, is necessarily connected to the
    strength of the argument that trial counsel’s assistance was
    ineffective.”).22
    Here, Arizona law required Atwood to raise his claim of
    ineffective assistance of trial counsel in a collateral
    proceeding. Martinez v. Ryan, 
    566 U.S. at 4
    . Because the
    “initial review in a collateral proceeding” requirement of
    Martinez v. Ryan is met, we consider the merits of Atwood’s
    claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel at sentencing
    in order to determine whether this claim is substantial and
    whether the failure of his post-conviction counsel (Daniel
    Davis) to raise this claim in state habeas court constituted
    constitutionally ineffective assistance.
    22
    Even if a court determines that a defendant has shown cause and
    prejudice sufficient to overcome a procedural default, that determination
    “does not entitle the prisoner to habeas relief.” Martinez v. Ryan,
    
    566 U.S. at 17
    . Rather, it allows a federal court to consider de novo “the
    merits of a claim that otherwise would have been procedurally defaulted.”
    Id.; see also Dickens v. Ryan, 
    740 F.3d 1302
    , 1321 (9th Cir. 2014) (en
    banc).
    ATWOOD V. RYAN                         47
    We first consider whether Bloom’s representation at
    sentencing was deficient because he failed to sufficiently
    investigate and present evidence regarding Atwood’s mental
    heath. Atwood argues that had Bloom obtained professionals
    to look into Atwood’s background and mental health, Bloom
    could have presented powerful mitigating evidence that
    Atwood suffered from a trauma-related mental impairment,
    such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which
    developed after Atwood was molested at the age of fourteen
    by a twenty-four-year-old. Atwood contends that his
    childhood molestation initiated a downward spiral, skewing
    his sexual development and causing him to engage in
    disruptive behavior.
    The district court conducted a four-day evidentiary
    hearing on this issue. The records from Atwood’s three-year
    incarceration at the Atascadero State Hospital were submitted
    to the district court as part of this hearing. Psychological
    reports in these records diagnosed Atwood with pedophilia.
    The records contained further details of Atwood’s sexual
    offenses against minors. Among other items in the records,
    a report included Atwood’s statement that a four-year-old girl
    that he molested “deserved it” because she was the block
    “tattletail.” Atwood also stated that he molested the ten-year-
    old girl because he felt like “scaring someone.” The records
    documented Atwood’s aggressive pre-incarceration behavior,
    describing an incident in which Atwood threatened his
    mother “with a butcher knife and generally terroriz[ed] the
    family,” and another incident in which Atwood threatened his
    cousin with a knife. While at Atascadero, Atwood was
    uncooperative and deemed “basically unamenable to
    treatment.” A staff report noted that Atwood “kn[ew] the
    proper words to use in therapy,” but did not make actual
    progress. Finally, the records contained details of Atwood’s
    48                       ATWOOD V. RYAN
    threatening and antisocial behavior at the hospital, describing
    multiple incidents in which Atwood verbally and physically
    assaulted patients and staff.
    The district court also heard testimony from Bloom
    regarding the scope of his investigation. Bloom stated that he
    met with Atwood, consulted with Atwood’s parents, and
    reviewed Atwood’s Atascadero records.23 Bloom testified
    that after reviewing the records from Atascadero, he decided
    that introducing the records would be “going down a wrong
    path,” because they could be used to support the State’s
    theory that Atwood “was predisposed to committing these
    kind of offenses and that it may have been premeditated
    conduct.” Moreover, it might lead the prosecutor to highlight
    damaging evidence regarding Atwood’s prior sexual
    molestation convictions.
    Bloom also testified that he “[t]hought about [retaining a
    mental health expert] but decided not to” for a number of
    reasons. Most important, nothing in Bloom’s research or his
    personal observations of Atwood suggested that such an
    inquiry would have provided helpful mitigation evidence.
    The Atascadero records showed that multiple social workers,
    psychiatrists, and psychologists had interviewed Atwood or
    considered his case, and none of these professionals indicated
    that Atwood had any significant mental impairment or
    disease. Nor did Atwood himself display symptoms of
    trauma. According to Bloom, Atwood did not take being
    molested by the twenty-four-year-old “very seriously” (he
    had told Bernsienne that he enjoyed the experience), and he
    did not appear traumatized by it. Atwood’s parents believed
    23
    Bloom was assisted by his paralegal, who performed the functions
    of a mitigation specialist.
    ATWOOD V. RYAN                                 49
    that drugs caused Atwood’s problems and that Atwood did
    not have any mental impairment. Bloom was also concerned
    that the State would obtain a rebuttal mental health expert
    that could provide damaging testimony about Atwood.24
    Finally, Bloom testified that Atwood was opposed to a
    mental impairment theory: Atwood “did not want [Bloom] to
    bring in anything about his mental problems or anything
    about his sexual past,” and indicated “that he was not going
    to cooperate.”25 Given these considerations, and after
    discussing the issue with Atwood, Bloom concluded that the
    best strategic decision was to limit the prejudicial evidence
    24
    Bloom testified that he reached an agreement with the prosecutor
    about the evidence to be introduced at sentencing. Under the alleged
    agreement, Bloom would not open the door to Atwood’s mental state if
    the prosecutor would not seek admission of the Atascadero records or
    offer testimony from Atascadero personnel concerning Atwood’s
    behavior. The prosecutor initially agreed with Bloom’s recollection of
    this agreement, but later concluded that there must not have been an
    agreement after reviewing the transcript of his cross-examination, which
    referenced Atascadero records.
    25
    Atwood denied making these statements, and claimed that he
    requested a mental evaluation. However, the district court found
    Atwood’s testimony on this issue was not credible. The district court
    found “that Bloom was a highly credible witness and credit[ed] fully his
    testimony that petitioner did not want to be examined. The Court also
    [found] credible Bloom’s assertion that he contemplated a mental health
    exam but feared [Atwood] . . . would not cooperate.” “Because the district
    judge is able to hear testimony live and to view the witnesses as they
    testify, his credibility findings are entitled to deference on appeal.” United
    States v. Mejia, 
    69 F.3d 309
    , 315 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Anderson v.
    City of Bessemer City, 
    470 U.S. 564
    , 575 (1985) (“[W]hen a trial judge’s
    finding is based on his decision to credit the testimony of one of two or
    more witnesses, each of whom has told a coherent and facially plausible
    story that is not contradicted by extrinsic evidence, that finding, if not
    internally inconsistent, can virtually never be clear error.”).
    50                   ATWOOD V. RYAN
    considered by the sentencing judge and develop mitigating
    evidence on Atwood’s drug use and family background,
    rather than develop a mental impairment defense.
    The four-day evidentiary hearing also included the
    testimony of mental health professionals who evaluated
    Atwood for purposes of the hearing. Atwood presented
    testimony from Dr. Donna Schwartz-Watts, a psychiatrist
    who evaluated Atwood in October 2012. At the evidentiary
    hearing, Schwartz-Watts testified that Atwood currently
    exhibited many of the symptoms of PTSD, but that she could
    not determine whether Atwood developed PTSD when he
    was molested at the age of fourteen or in response to other
    adverse events, such as his experiences in prison. Schwartz-
    Watts conceded that the Atascadero records did not report
    that Atwood had been traumatized. She also conceded that
    the records documented a pattern of behavior consistent with
    antisocial personality disorder, and stated, “it’s very fair to
    say a lot of [Atwood’s] actions [once he was confined] were
    sociopathic. They were to get something he wanted. They
    were to manipulate.” Schwartz-Watts also testified that
    Atwood “technically meets the criteria” for pedophilia.
    The State presented expert testimony from Dr. Erin
    Nelson, a psychologist who conducted a mental health
    evaluation of Atwood in June 2013. Nelson testified that she
    had diagnosed Atwood with substance abuse disorder,
    pedophilic disorder, and antisocial personality disorder. She
    stated that there was a “plausible argument” that Atwood
    satisfied the criteria of PTSD “as we sit here today,” but that
    PTSD was “not evident at the time of [Atwood’s] arrest or
    when he was first incarcerated.” Nelson concluded that “a
    large amount of the evidence” indicated that Atwood may
    have developed PTSD “post incarceration,” pointing out that
    ATWOOD V. RYAN                                 51
    the Atascadero records contained no discussion of trauma,
    and that Atwood bragged about his ability to manipulate
    psychologists. Nelson also stated that, regardless of whether
    Atwood had PTSD or antisocial personality disorder, he was
    able to control his behavior pre- and post-offense.
    On January 27, 2014, after reviewing the evidence
    presented at the evidentiary hearing, the district court held
    that Atwood’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at
    sentencing was meritless and that therefore Atwood failed to
    satisfy the requirements of Martinez v. Ryan to excuse
    procedural default. The court denied Atwood’s motion for
    reconsideration.26
    Based on this record, we agree with the district court that
    Atwood’s claim of ineffective assistance of sentencing
    counsel lacked merit. First, Bloom’s failure to conduct
    further investigation into Atwood’s mental health did not fall
    below an objective standard of reasonableness. Bloom could
    have reasonably determined that further investigation of
    Atwood’s background and mental state would not have
    provided useful support for the mitigation theory that Atwood
    suffered from a mental impairment. See Gonzalez v.
    26
    The court also denied Atwood’s motion on the ground that Atwood
    had raised a new claim for ineffective assistance of counsel in his motion
    for reconsideration that was not raised in his federal habeas petition and
    that leave to amend his petition would be futile because the new claim was
    barred by AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations in 
    28 U.S.C. § 2244
    (d)(1). See supra at 18. We need not address whether Atwood
    presents a claim that was not raised in his federal habeas petition or
    whether the district court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend.
    Even assuming that Atwood properly raised his claim, we agree with the
    district court’s alternative holdings that Atwood’s claim fails to satisfy the
    requirements of Martinez v. Ryan and fails on the merits.
    52                   ATWOOD V. RYAN
    Knowles, 
    515 F.3d 1006
    , 1015 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Absent any
    objective indication that [Petitioner] suffered from any mental
    illness, [counsel] cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to
    pursue this avenue of mitigation . . . .”). As Bloom testified,
    the evidence available to him at the time did not indicate that
    Atwood was traumatized; neither the Atascadero records, nor
    Bloom’s own observations of Atwood, nor interviews with
    Atwood’s parents supported such a theory. Moreover,
    Atwood did not want Bloom to pursue this form of mitigation
    and indicated that he would not cooperate with a mental
    health examination. Strickland, 
    466 U.S. at 691
     (“[W]hen a
    defendant has given counsel reason to believe that pursuing
    certain investigations would be fruitless or even harmful,
    counsel’s failure to pursue those investigations may not later
    be challenged as unreasonable.”).
    Bloom’s “decision to present a limited defense to restrict
    the prosecution’s rebuttal evidence was a legitimate strategy.”
    Elmore v. Sinclair, 
    799 F.3d 1238
    , 1251 (9th Cir. 2015). We
    have held that counsel’s decision not to pursue a mental
    health defense is a reasonable strategic decision under
    Strickland where it avoided the introduction of “dueling
    mental health experts,” evidence of the petitioner’s “past acts
    of sexual abuse as rebuttal evidence,” and “details of the
    crime.” 
    Id. at 1246, 1251
    ; see also Wong v. Belmontes,
    
    558 U.S. 15
    , 25 (2009) (per curiam) (recognizing that “[a]
    heavyhanded case to portray [the defendant] in a positive
    light, with or without experts, would have invited” strong
    evidence in rebuttal and stating that counsel had “a lot to
    lose” by taking a “more-evidence-is-better” approach).
    Bloom could have reasonably concluded that adopting a
    mental health defense would open the door to rebuttal
    testimony that Atwood has pedophilic disorder and antisocial
    personality disorder. As we have noted, evidence of an
    ATWOOD V. RYAN                               53
    antisocial personality disorder may be highly damaging.
    Beardslee v. Woodford, 
    358 F.3d 560
    , 583 (9th Cir. 2004)
    (acknowledging that an antisocial personality diagnosis can
    be damaging and noting that we assume that competent
    counsel regularly evaluate the potential impact of psychiatric
    testimony); Clabourne v. Lewis, 
    64 F.3d 1373
    , 1384 (9th Cir.
    1995) (noting that records showing the defendant had an
    antisocial personality were not helpful); Crittenden v. Ayers,
    
    624 F.3d 943
    , 968 n.15 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that counsel
    made a reasonable decision to keep evidence of a defendant’s
    antisocial personality disorder away from sentencing jury).
    In addition, adopting a mental health defense could open the
    door to damaging information from the Atascadero records,
    including details of Atwood’s prior offenses, reports that
    Atwood was unamenable to treatment, and descriptions of
    Atwood’s threatening and antisocial behavior at Atascadero.
    Given the detrimental rebuttal evidence that could have been
    introduced, Bloom reasonably focused his efforts on
    developing other areas of mitigation, such as Atwood’s drug
    use and his good family background.27 Accordingly, Bloom’s
    strategic decision not to pursue a mental health investigation
    27
    Atwood suggests that Bloom rendered ineffective assistance of
    counsel by failing to investigate and introduce further corroborating
    evidence regarding Atwood’s drug use. We disagree, because any such
    evidence would have been merely cumulative. Atwood and his father
    both testified during the mitigation hearing about his extensive drug use.
    Producing additional documentation to support this testimony would have
    been redundant and “would have offered an insignificant benefit, if any at
    all.” Belmontes, 
    558 U.S. at 23
    ; cf. Bland v. Sirmons, 
    459 F.3d 999
    , 1031
    (10th Cir. 2006) (finding no prejudice when counsel failed to present
    additional, redundant testimony about defendant’s drug use).
    Accordingly, the failure to introduce such evidence was neither deficient
    nor prejudicial.
    54                   ATWOOD V. RYAN
    appears to be a reasonable choice given the totality of the
    circumstances. Strickland, 
    466 U.S. at
    695–96.
    Atwood argues that even if Bloom could have reasonably
    decided not to pursue a PTSD theory, a mental health expert
    might have come up with some other useful theory, and there
    would have been no harm in hiring such an expert. But the
    Supreme Court’s precedent does not support the theory that
    if counsel had “nothing to lose” by pursuing a defense, then
    counsel is deficient for failing to pursue it. Cf. Mirzayance,
    
    556 U.S. at 122
    . “[T]he relevant inquiry under Strickland is
    not what defense counsel could have pursued, but rather
    whether the choices made by defense counsel were
    reasonable.” Siripongs v. Calderon, 
    133 F.3d 732
    , 736 (9th
    Cir. 1998). An argument that counsel could have relied on
    “any number of hypothetical experts . . . whose insight might
    possibly have been useful” is speculative and insufficient to
    establish that counsel was deficient. Richter, 
    562 U.S. at 107
    .
    In sum, Atwood fails to present evidence that Bloom’s
    performance was outside “the range of competence demanded
    of attorneys in criminal cases” under the “prevailing
    professional norms” in Arizona in 1987. Strickland, 
    466 U.S. at
    687–88 (citation omitted); see also Pinholster, 
    563 U.S. at 196
     (rejecting the dissent’s argument that counsel’s
    performance was deficient where the dissent provided no
    evidence that counsel’s chosen mitigation strategy was
    “inconsistent with the standard of professional competence in
    capital cases that prevailed in Los Angeles in 1984”). This is
    “a case, like Strickland itself, in which defense counsel’s
    decision not to seek more mitigating evidence from the
    defendant’s background than was already in hand fell well
    within the range of professionally reasonable judgments.”
    Bobby v. Van Hook, 
    558 U.S. 4
    , 11–12 (2009) (per curiam)
    ATWOOD V. RYAN                         55
    (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
    Accordingly, we hold that Bloom’s representation was not
    deficient under the deferential standard set out in Strickland.
    Second, even if Bloom’s performance had been deficient,
    Atwood could not establish that this deficiency “prejudiced
    the defense.” Strickland, 
    466 U.S. at 687
    . Atwood argues
    that if Bloom had investigated his mental health, there is a
    reasonable probability that the sentencer “would have
    concluded that the balance of aggravating and mitigating
    circumstances did not warrant death.” 
    Id. at 695
    . We
    disagree. As noted above, nothing in the Atascadero records
    indicated that Atwood suffered trauma-related symptoms, and
    Atwood’s own expert admitted that she could not determine
    when Atwood might have developed his alleged trauma-
    related impairment. Speculation that Atwood may have some
    type of brain dysfunction or disorder “is not sufficient to
    establish prejudice.” Bible v. Ryan, 
    571 F.3d 860
    , 871 (9th
    Cir. 2009). Moreover, even if such evidence could have been
    presented, it may well have opened the door to the damaging
    rebuttal evidence described above. Therefore, taking into
    account “the totality of the evidence,” we hold that Atwood
    failed to establish “a reasonable probability that, but for
    [sentencing] counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the
    proceeding would have been different.” Strickland, 
    466 U.S. at
    694–95.
    Because Atwood’s claim of ineffective assistance of
    sentencing counsel claim lacks merit, Davis, Atwood’s post-
    conviction counsel, was not deficient for failing to raise it.
    Further, Davis’s failure to raise the meritless ineffective
    assistance of sentencing counsel claim was not prejudicial,
    because there was not a reasonable probability that the state
    habeas court would have granted Atwood relief had Davis
    56                       ATWOOD V. RYAN
    raised it. Therefore, Atwood cannot meet Martinez v. Ryan’s
    standard for excusing his procedural default in failing to bring
    this claim before the state habeas court. See Davila, 137 S.
    Ct. at 2065. Accordingly, Atwood’s ineffective assistance of
    sentencing counsel claim is procedurally barred. Coleman,
    
    501 U.S. at 745
    .28
    AFFIRMED.
    28
    Because we have concluded that Atwood’s claim of ineffective
    assistance of sentencing counsel is meritless, see supra at 51–55, Atwood
    would not be entitled to relief even if his claim were not procedurally
    barred. See 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
    (b)(2) (“An application for a writ of habeas
    corpus may be denied on the merits, notwithstanding the failure of the
    applicant to exhaust the remedies available in the courts of the State.”).
    ATWOOD V. RYAN   57
    APPENDIX
    58                     ATWOOD V. RYAN
    Photographs from Kerrville Suite
    Kerrville Photo Suite Court Record Exhibits 26 & 27 *
    *
    Frame Numbers assigned in accordance with the Kerrville Photo
    Log sequence
    ATWOOD V. RYAN                   59
    Photographs from Kerrville Suite (cont’d)
    60              ATWOOD V. RYAN
    Photographs from Kerrville Suite (cont’d)
    ATWOOD V. RYAN                  61
    Frame 9 of Kerrville Suite (Top)
    and Frame 1 of Kerrville Suite (Bottom)
    62                 ATWOOD V. RYAN
    San Antonio Suite—Alleged Counterfeit Additions
    Photograph Comparing
    Exhibit 25-10 (left—San Antonio Suite) and Exhibit 26-1 (right—Kerrville Suite)
    ATWOOD V. RYAN
    63
    64         ATWOOD V. RYAN
    Photographs from Tucson Suite
    ATWOOD V. RYAN                 65
    Photographs from Tucson Suite (cont’d)
    66
    Photograph from Tucson Suite
    ATWOOD V. RYAN
    Photograph from Tucson Suite
    ATWOOD V. RYAN
    67
    68                 ATWOOD V. RYAN
    Enhanced Image from Photograph in Tucson Suite
    ATWOOD V. RYAN            69
    Photograph from Couser Suite
    70              ATWOOD V. RYAN
    Photographs of Gravel Pan in San Antonio
    Before Accident Reconstruction
    ATWOOD V. RYAN                    71
    Photograph of Gravel Pan After Accident Reconstruction