Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 460.0

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

299 

Opinion of the Court 

1322–1325.  The  dissent  therefore  concluded  that  the  state 
court’s application of Strickland to the facts of this case was 
unreasonable.  542 F. 3d, at 1326. 

We  granted  certiorari  to  resolve  two  related  questions 
raised  by  Wood’s  petition.  First,  we  granted  review  of  a 
question that has divided the Courts of Appeals: whether, in 
order to satisfy § 2254(d)(2), a petitioner must establish only 
that the state-court factual determination on which the deci­
sion  was  based  was  “unreasonable,”  or  whether  § 2254(e)(1) 
additionally  requires  a  petitioner  to  rebut  a  presumption 
that the determination was correct with clear and convincing 
evidence.1  We also granted review of the question whether 
the  state  court  reasonably  determined  that  Wood’s  counsel 
made a “strategic decision” not to pursue or present evidence 
of his mental deﬁciencies.  556 U. S. 1234 (2009).  Wood’s pe­

1 See,  e. g.,  542  F.  3d  1281,  1285,  1304,  n.  23  (CA11  2008)  (case  below); 
Taylor  v.  Maddox,  366  F.  3d  992,  999–1000  (CA9)  (where  a  habeas  peti­
tioner  challenges  state-court  factual  ﬁndings “based  entirely  on  the  state 
record,”  the  federal  court  reviews  those  ﬁndings  for  reasonableness  only 
under  § 2254(d)(2),  but  where  a  petitioner  challenges  such  ﬁndings  based 
in part on  evidence that is extrinsic to the  state-court record, § 2254(e)(1) 
applies),  cert.  denied,  543  U. S.  1038  (2004);  Lambert  v.  Blackwell,  387 
F.  3d  210,  235  (CA3  2004)  (“[Section]  2254(d)(2)’s  reasonableness  determi­
nation  turns  on  a  consideration  of  the  totality  of  the  ‘evidence  presented 
in the state-court proceeding,’ while § 2254(e)(1) contemplates a challenge 
to the state court’s individual factual determinations, including a challenge 
based wholly or in part on evidence outside the state trial record”); Trus­
sell v.  Bowersox, 447 F. 3d 588, 591 (CA8) (federal habeas relief is available 
only “if the state court made ‘an unreasonable determination of the facts in 
light  of the  evidence  presented in  the State  court  proceeding,’ 28  U. S. C. 
§ 2254(d)(2),  which  requires  clear  and  convincing  evidence  that  the  state 
court’s  presumptively  correct  factual  ﬁnding  lacks  evidentiary  support”), 
cert. denied, 549 U. S. 1034 (2006); Ben-Yisrayl v.  Buss, 540 F. 3d 542, 549 
(CA7  2008)  (§ 2254(d)(2)  can  be  satisﬁed  by  showing,  under  § 2254(e)(1), 
that  a  state-court  decision  “rests  upon  a  determination  of  fact  that  lies 
against  the  clear  weight  of  the  evidence”  because  such  a  decision  “is, 
by  deﬁnition,  a  decision  so  inadequately  supported  by  the  record  as  to 
be  arbitrary  and  therefore  objectively  unreasonable”  (internal  quotation 
marks omitted)).