United States Sixth Circuit

District court's denial of defendant's request for habeas relief from his 1984 conviction for committing two murders and a sentence of death is affirmed where: 1) the admission of a doctor's testimony at the sentencing phase of the trial was harmless because, under the aggravating circumstances found by the jury, the sequence of the murders did not matter; 2) with respect to defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the state appellate court's decision that defendant's attorneys' performance at the sentencing phase was not constitutionally deficient was neither contrary to clearly established federal law nor an unreasonable application of federal law; 3) regardless of whether the state ever actually offered defendant a life sentence in exchange for a guilty plea prior to trial, the evidence of plea negotiations was not relevant mitigation evidence; and 4) district court correctly determined that the state courts had applied a procedural time bar to the claims presented for the first time in defendant's 1991 and 1995 petitions for post-conviction relief, and that therefore, defendant has procedurally defaulted the claims brought only in those petitions.

Appellate Information

• Argued 08/17/2010
• Decided 08/31/2010
• Published 08/31/2010

Judges

• ROGERS

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Kelley J. Henry, James E. Gaylord