Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 456

Cite as: 558 U. S. 290 (2010) 

295 

Opinion of the Court 

evidence  suggested  that  he  “probably  does  exhibit  signiﬁ­
cantly  subaverage  general  intellectual  functioning,”  he  had 
failed  to  show  “that  he  has  signiﬁcant  or  substantial  deﬁ­
cits  in  his  adaptive  functioning.”  App.  to  Pet.  for  Cert. 
236a–237a. 

The  court  also  rejected  Wood’s  factually  related  claim  of 
ineffective  assistance  of  counsel,  concluding  that  Wood  had 
failed  to  establish  that  his  counsel’s  performance  was  deﬁ­
cient  or  that  any  deﬁciency  prejudiced  his  defense.  Id.,  at 
257a–275a.  The  court  ﬁrst  made  a  factual  ﬁnding  that 
Wood’s  counsel  had  made  a  strategic  decision  not  to  pursue 
evidence  of  his  alleged  mental  retardation.  The  court  ob­
served  that  counsel  had  requested  that  a  Dr.  Karl  Kirkland 
conduct  a  mental  evaluation,  had  “thoroughly  reviewed 
Dr. Kirkland’s report,” and had “determined that nothing in 
that  report  merited  further  investigation.”  Id.,  at  264a, 
271a.  The court additionally found that counsel appeared to 
have  made  a  strategic  decision  not  to  present  to  the  jury 
the  limited  evidence  of  Wood’s  mental  deﬁciencies  in  their 
possession,  because  “calling  Dr.  Kirkland  to  testify  was  not 
in Wood’s best interest.”  Id., at 271a–272a.  The court con­
cluded  that  these  strategic  decisions  were  reasonable  and 
thus that counsel had not performed deﬁciently.  Ibid.  The 
court further concluded that there was “no reasonable proba­
bility”  of  a  different  outcome  had  the  evidence  developed  in 
the  Rule  32  hearings  been  presented  to  the  jury  or  to  the 
sentencing  court.  Id.,  at  273a.  The  Alabama  Court  of 
Criminal Appeals afﬁrmed, Wood v.  State, 891 So. 2d 398, 411 
(2004),  and  the  Alabama  Supreme  Court  denied  certiorari, 
App. 4. 

Wood  then  ﬁled  a  petition  for  federal  habeas  relief  under 
§ 2254.  The  District  Court  rejected  all  of  Wood’s  claims 
save  one:  that  counsel’s  failure  to  investigate  and  present 
mitigation  evidence  of  his  mental  deﬁciencies  during  the 
penalty  phase  constituted  ineffective  assistance  of  counsel. 
465 F. Supp. 2d 1211, 1239–1245 (MD Ala. 2006).  According