NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 08a0564n.06 F iled: Septem ber 17, 2008 Case No. 07- 1032 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT RONALD REDDIC, P etitioner -Appellant,
v. P ERCY CONERLY, Respondent-Appellee.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE E ASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIG AN

BEF OR E: NO RRIS, BA TC HELD ER , a nd G IBBO NS, Ci r c uitJudg e s. ALICE M. BATCHEL DER, Circ uit Jud ge. Pe tit ion e r– Ap pe lla nt R on a ld R e dd ic a

pp e a ls the dis tr ic t court ’s de nia l of his pe tit ion fo r a wr it of ha be a s cor pu s und e r 28 U. S.C. § 225 4. Re dd ic pleade d g uilty in Michig an st ate court to arme d robber y in violation of MCL § 750.529 for r obbing his mot he r w itha kn if e . We a ff ir m. I. BACKG ROUND Reddic wa s orig inally ch ar ged i n Michig an state c ourt with armed r obbery , two counts of felonious assault, attempt to disarm a police office r, re sisting and obstruc ting a police off

icer , and domestic violence . Reddic plea ded g uilty to one count of a

rmed robbe ry , which ca

rries a statutory maxi mum sentence of life in prison, and w hich, under Michig an’s guidelines sentenc ing sc heme,
c arr ie d a min imum of a

pp ro xima te ly 11 y e ars . I n e xch ang e fo r t he g uil ty ple a , th e State a g re e d to2

a se nte nc e of

5- to- 15 y e ars and

dis mis se d th e re ma ini ngc ha rg e s. At sentenc ing, Re ddic moved to withdrawhis guilty plea, claiming that at the time of the plea he wa s not able to make a n informed decision beca

use he was never g iven complete discove ry , and that he “w asn’t in [the] rig ht f rame of mind” due to the “ duress” he wa s under at the time. At the he ari ngon

thi s mo tio n, Re dd ic ’s tr ia l couns e l did littl e to ar g ue that Red dic sh ou ld be pe rm itt e d to withdraw the plea, a

nd explained why

he thoug ht the plea wa s in Reddic’s bes t i n t er est. Counsel also dec lined what appe are d to be an offe r by the t rial court to allow Reddic more time to collec t and revie w discover

y befor e the cour

t ruled on his motion to wit hdraw . The trial c ourt denied Reddic ’s motion to withdraw, f

inding that he had not sustained his “burde n of establishing that the withdraw al is supported by

rea sons based on the inter est of justice.” Reddic filed a

pplications for lea

ve to appeal i n t h e Michig an Court of Appe als and the Mic hig an Su

pr e me Court . T o th e Court of Ap pe a ls, Re dd ic pr e se nte d th e fo llo wi ngc la ims : I
. Th e tr ia l c ourt

a bu se d it s d isc re tio n in

de nyingde fe nd ant’ s mo tio n to withdraw his plea

prior to sentenc ing w hen defenda nt stated he w as not in the rig ht frame of mind and cla imed he wa s innocent of the of fense
. I I
. Def

endant’ s trial counsel wa s ineffe ctive in fa iling to vig orousl y argue defe ndant’s position to withdraw the plea
. The Court of Appe als denied the application. Pe op le v . R e dd ic , No. 253700 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2004). Reddic’ s application to t h e Mi chig an Supreme Court, which was f iled pr o s e , made simil ar a rg uments. The applica

tion was denied. Pe op le v . R e dd ic , 471 Mich. 885 (2004). Reddic then filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the E astern District of Michig an, prese nting claims identical to those prese nted to the Michig an Court of Ap pe a ls. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d th e pe tit ion . T he c ourt fo un d th a t Re dd ic ’s argume nts3

f o r w it h dr aw a l w e r e in s u f

f ic ie n t a n d th a t h is trial c o u n s e l’ s p e r f o r ma n c e w a s n o t d e f

ic ie n t. We g r an t e d a c e rt i f i c a t e o f a p p e a l a b i l i t y. II. DE NI AL OF M OTI ON TO W ITH DR AWP LEA Aft er c are fu lly

re vie wi ngthe re c or d, the a pp lic a ble law, the pa

rt ie s' br ie fs and

c ouns e ls' arguments, we c onclude that the di strict court did not err in its conclusion that the state cour t’s denial of Reddic’ s motion t o withdraw his plea is neither co ntrary

to nor an unre asonable application of established Supreme Court prec edent a nd that Reddic i s there fore not entitled to habea s relief on that claim. B eca

use the district cour

t’s opinion care fully

and cor rec tly sets ou t t he law g overningthe issue, and cle arly

articulates the reasons underly ing its decision, i ssuance of a full written opinion by this court would serve n o u s ef u l purpose. Ac cording ly , for the r easons state d in the district
c ourt ’s op ini on

de ny ingRe dd ic ’s pe tit ion

fo r h a be a s r e lie f o n th is g ro un d, we AF F I RM. III . I NE F F EC TIV E A SSIST AN CE OF CO UN SEL On appe al, Reddic a

rg ues that he w as “de nied his fede ral constitut ional rig ht to the effe ctive
a ssi sta nc e of c ouns e l w he re his tr ia l att orn ey fa ile d to inv e sti g a te and re vie w d isc ov e ry

wi th petitioner, which w as re asonably likely t o h av e re s u lted in a diffe rent outcome for Mr. Re ddic.” This differ s markedly

from the ineffe ctive assistance claim that he pr esente d to the state cour ts and in h is p e tit ion

fo r h a be a s re lie f in the dis tr ic t c ourt , w hic h w a s th a t hi s c ouns e l w a s in e ff e c tiv e “ in failing to vigor ously

argue def

endant’ s position t o withdraw his plea .” (e mphasis in origina l). We d e ny Re dd ic ’s dis c ov e ry -r e la te d in e ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e c la im be c a

us e it wa s n ot p ro pe rl y exhausted in the state cour ts as require d by

28 U.S.C. § 2254(c). F urthermor e, exerc ising our discretion under

§ 2254(b)( 2), we also find the mer its of the claim unava iling. Reddic ha s made no sh ow ingtha

t th e re wa s any

e vid e nc e to b e dis c ov e re d th a t, i f co un se l ha d o nly le arn e d o f i t, w ou ld4

have c a us e d Re dd ic no t to p le a d guil ty bu t in ste a d g o to tr ia l. A c c or din g ly , Re dd ic is w ho lly un a ble to satisfy t he pre

judice prongof the inef fec tive assistance inquiry set forth in Strickland v. W ashington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Wit h respe ct to the ineffe ctive assistance claim that Reddic did r aise in his ha beas pe tition,
we c onclude that the district c ourt’s opinion denying this cla im care fully and cor rec tly sets out the l aw go v er n i ng the issue, and c lear ly articulates the re asons under ly ing its dec ision on the matter, which we find persua sive. Ther efor e, to the extent Reddic t hat we c ould construe Reddic ’s appe al
as ra ising this claim, we a ffirm for the re asons stated in the c ourt’s opinion. IV . C ON CL USI ON For the fore g oing r easons, we AF F IRM the di strict court’s denial of R eddic’ s petition for habea s relief

.