Read Rhode v. Hall, 08-16960

In a capital habeas matter, the denial of the petition is affirmed where: 1) the state court of appeals reasonably found that defense counsel thought the penalty phase strategy would involve both mitigation and residual doubt; 2) defendant and the state had the opportunity to present the state habeas court with their version of the facts; 3) the state habeas court did not unreasonably find that counsel's investigation of possible mitigation evidence was adequate; 4) the effectiveness of counsel's representation at sentencing is not an exact derivative of the amount of time counsel spends investigating mitigation evidence; and 5) the evidence that petitioner faulted counsel for not presenting to the jury was potentially aggravating or cumulative.

Appellate Information

• Decided 09/17/2009
• Published 09/17/2009

Judges

• PER CURIAM:, Before CARNES, HULL and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Eleventh Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Thomas H. Dunn and Brian S. Kammer (Court-Appointed), GA Resource Ctr., Atlanta, GA, for Rhode., Patricia Beth Attaway Burton, GA Law Dept., Atlanta, GA, for Hall.