United States Sixth Circuit

District court's denial of defendant's motion for habeas relief from his capital murder conviction is affirmed where: 1) defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel with regard to the no-contest plea does not survive de novo review because defendant refused to plead guilty, despite the state's offer of a life sentence in return for a guilty plea, and this strategy was professionally reasonable; 2) defendant has waived his claim that counsel's ineffectiveness rendered his no contest plea involuntary; 3) defendant's claim that his counsel was ineffective in the penalty phase of the proceedings because they placed victim impact evidence and other prejudicial information before the court via a presentence investigation report and a statement from the victim's son fails as a matter of law; 4) even assuming that defendant's allegations that a defense team member leaked information are true, there was no prejudice, because he forfeited his right to confidentiality in the matter as a matter of state law when he disclosed the contents to a jailhouse informant; 5) defendant's claim of a Brady violation fails as a matter of law; and 6) defendant's claim that the trial court failed to hear evidence of a charged aggravator is without merit.

Appellate Information

• Argued 06/15/2010
• Decided 09/13/2010
• Published 09/13/2010

Judges

• BATCHELDER

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Rachel Troutman, Holly E. LeClair