Source: http://openjurist.org/288/f3d/629/wiggins-v-r-corcoran-w-j
Timestamp: 2013-05-19 21:58:30
Document Index: 769863414

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2254', '§ 2253', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', 'Art. 27', '§ 413', '§ 2254']

288 F3d 629 Wiggins v. R Corcoran W J | OpenJurist
288 F. 3d 629 - Wiggins v. R Corcoran W J	Home288 f3d 629 wiggins v. r corcoran w j
288 F3d 629 Wiggins v. R Corcoran W J 288 F.3d 629
Kevin WIGGINS, Petitioner-Appellee,v.Thomas R. CORCORAN, Warden, Maryland Correctional Adjustment Center; William W. Sondervan, Commissioner of Corrections of the State of Maryland; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Respondents-Appellants.
No. 01-23.
ARGUED: Ann Norman Bosse, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Appeals Division, Office of the Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Respondents-Appellants. Donald Beaton Verrilli, Jr., Jenner & Block, L.L.C., Washington, D.C., for Petitioner-Appellee. ON BRIEF: J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of Maryland, Criminal Appeals Division, Office of the Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Respondents-Appellants. Lara M. Flint, Brian P. Hauck, Jenner & Block, L.L.C., Washington, D.C., for Petitioner-Appellee.
The State of Maryland appeals from the district court's grant of Kevin Wiggins' 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court invalidated Kevin Wiggins' capital murder conviction under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), and death sentence under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The district court found that the Maryland Court of Appeals, although stating properly the governing principle of Jackson v. Virginia, applied it unreasonably in upholding Wiggins' capital murder conviction. Furthermore, the district court found that Wiggins' sentencing counsel was ineffective for failure to investigate and present a case in mitigation during sentencing in accord with Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000). This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and we reverse.
At the close of the case, Judge Hinkel found Wiggins guilty of the murder of Mrs. Lacs, robbery, and theft. In his ruling, Judge Hinkel indicated that he did not believe either McElroy or Turner. He found that Wiggins was at Mrs. Lacs' apartment building "at a relevant time", that Mrs. Lacs died sometime on Thursday, September 15, and not any later. The judge also believed to be due to mistaken memory the evidence that Edith Vassar gave regarding the telephone call on the 16th and Elizabeth Lane's missing person's report, indicating that Mrs. Lacs was wearing a red dress on the 15th. In closing, the judge remarked, "[t]he defense argues that any presumption that he is the robber is rebutted by the testimony of Miss Vassar, but my decision is not based on any presumption arising from the recent possession of stolen property, but my belief and fact finding and decision is based upon all the evidence that I have weighed in this case and not by any presumption."
Wiggins filed a timely 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition in the district court. The district court found that the Maryland Court of Appeals had unreasonably applied the standard articulated in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), pertaining to sufficiency of the evidence challenges when it affirmed his convictions. See Wiggins v. Corcoran, 164 F.Supp.2d 538, 554 (D.Md. 2001). Additionally, the district court found that Wiggins' counsel did not render effective assistance at sentencing. The district court based its decision in large part on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000), finding counsel ineffective for failure to investigate and present at sentencing his client's social history. The district court reasoned that "Wiggins's evidence was much stronger, and the State's evidence favoring imposition of the death penalty was far weaker, than the comparable evidence in Williams," and concluded that Wiggins was entitled to relief. Wiggins v. Corcoran, 164 F.Supp.2d at 557-60. The district court explicitly found that Wiggins' case could not be distinguished on the ground that trial counsel had made a legitimate tactical decision because it found that a tactical decision to be reasonable must be based on a reasonable investigation which was not performed. Wiggins, 164 F.Supp.2d at 558-59. The district court granted the petition, vacated the conviction and sentence, and ordered Wiggins released from the murder charge. 164 F.Supp.2d at 576. However, the district court stayed its judgment pending our resolution of the State's appeal.
As a result of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's amendments to § 2254, our review of state criminal convictions is circumscribed. A federal court may only grant relief under § 2254 if it is shown that a decision of a state court "resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as established by the Supreme Court of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). A decision is "contrary to" clearly established federal law "if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the Supreme] Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently from [the Supreme] Court on a set of materially indistinguishable facts." Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412-13, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000). The "unreasonable application" grounds for granting the writ applies "if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from [the Supreme Court's] decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner's case." Williams, 529 U.S. at 412-13, 120 S.Ct. 1495. See also Bell v. Jarvis, 236 F.3d 149, 157 (4th Cir.2000) (en banc). However, a writ of habeas corpus may not issue if the federal court, in its own judgment, decides that the state court decision applied clearly established federal law merely "erroneously or incorrectly." Vick v. Williams, 233 F.3d 213, 216 (4th Cir.2000) (citation omitted). Instead, we must decide if the state court's application of federal law was objectively unreasonable. 233 F.3d at 216. We have said that the criterion of reasonableness for purposes of § 2254(d)(1) is "whether the [state court's] determination is at least minimally consistent with the facts and circumstances of the case." Bell v. Jarvis, 236 F.3d at 159 (quoting Wright v. Angelone, 151 F.3d 151, 157 (4th Cir.1998) (citation omitted)).
Both of Wiggins' contentions here implicate the "unreasonable application" ground for relief under § 2254(d)(1) because the Maryland Court of Appeals identified the correct principles governing Wiggins' claims from Supreme Court precedent. We review de novo the district court's decision on a § 2254 petition based on a state court record. Spicer v. Roxbury Correctional Institute, 194 F.3d 547, 555 (4th Cir.1999). Therefore, we must decide for ourselves whether the Maryland Court of Appeals unreasonably applied clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court.
III. Wiggins' Jackson v.
Virginia Claim3
In Jackson v. Virginia, the Supreme Court stated that the "critical inquiry on review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction ... [is] whether the record evidence could reasonably support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). The question to be answered in applying the standard is "whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781 (italics in original). Conflicting inferences presented by the facts in the historical record are presumed to have been resolved in favor of the prosecution "even if it does not affirmatively appear in the record, and we must defer to that resolution." Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326, 99 S.Ct. 2781; Wright v. West, 505 U.S. 277, 297, 112 S.Ct. 2482, 120 L.Ed.2d 225 (1992). The Maryland Court of Appeals identified these controlling principles of law correctly. Wiggins v. State, 597 A.2d at 1366-67. As stated above, it is our task to decide whether the state court's application of these precepts is unreasonable in this case: to do this we must decide whether the Court of Appeals' decision is minimally consistent with the historical record of facts. Bell v. Jarvis, 236 F.3d at 159. We conclude that it is; indeed, in our opinion, it is not only minimally consistent with, but fully supported by the record.
IV. Wiggins' Strickland Claim
We review Wiggins' claim de novo applying the same standard prescribed by § 2254(d) and find that the Maryland court's decision was a reasonable application of Strickland. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), establishes a two component, conjunctive test for ineffectiveness of counsel claims; namely that counsel's performance was deficient and that such performance prejudiced the defense. To establish deficient performance the defendant must show that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052. The reasonableness inquiry proceeds based on all of the facts and circumstances of the case "viewed as of the time of counsel's conduct." 466 U.S. at 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052. This performance prong is highly deferential to counsel's choices, and informed strategic decisions are virtually unchallengeable. 466 U.S. at 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052. A defendant "must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action `might be considered sound trial strategy.'" 466 U.S. at 489, 104 S.Ct. 1949 (quoting Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91, 101, 76 S.Ct. 158, 100 L.Ed. 83 (1955)). To establish prejudice, the defendant must show that but for counsel's deficient performance "there is a reasonable probability that ... the result of the proceeding would have been different." 466 U.S. at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052. A reasonable probability is one "sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the proceeding." 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. The Maryland Court of Appeals analyzed Wiggins' ineffectiveness claim under this standard. Wiggins v. State, 352 Md. 580, 724 A.2d 1, 12 (Md.1999).
The district court found that Wiggins did not receive effective assistance of counsel at sentencing because his counsel failed to develop a social history exposing Wiggins' harsh childhood and sub-average mental capacity.8 The district court decided that the Court of Appeals was unreasonable in its analysis of Wiggins' claim because it was purportedly "almost directly contrary to the Supreme Court's recent decision in Williams v. Taylor." Wiggins v. Corcoran, 164 F.Supp.2d at 557 (citation omitted). Upon its independent review of the claim, the district court found for Wiggins on the claim and thus granted his § 2254 petition on this aspect of the petition, as well as that the evidence did not support the judgment of conviction.
In Williams v. Taylor, counsel began preparing for sentencing one week before the proceeding and failed utterly to prepare any social history because of a misapprehension of state law regarding access to juvenile records. Williams, 529 U.S. at 395, 120 S.Ct. 1495. That social history would have disclosed a wealth of potentially mitigating evidence grounded in Williams' "nightmarish" childhood, as well as his being "borderline mentally retarded." In other words, counsel's complete failure to investigate could not have led to a reasonable strategic choice for the simple reason that he had no information upon which to make a strategic choice. It was this wholesale failure that led the Court to conclude that Williams did not receive constitutionally sufficient representation. Williams, 529 U.S. at 396, 120 S.Ct. 1495 (citing 1 ABA Standards for Criminal Justice 4-4.1, commentary, p. 4-55 (2d ed.1980)).
We think that despite any superficial similarities to the instant case, the district court's reliance on Williams v. Taylor to find the Maryland Court of Appeals' decision unreasonable was misplaced. First, Williams does not establish a per se rule that counsel must develop and present an exhaustive social history in order to effectively represent a client in a capital murder case. It merely reaffirms the long settled rule, in the context of a particularly glaring failure of counsel's duty to investigate, that defendants have a constitutional right to provide a factfinder with relevant mitigating evidence. Williams, 529 U.S. at 393, 120 S.Ct. 1495; see also, e.g., Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 327-28, 109 S.Ct. 2934, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989). Williams does require that counsel have some knowledge about potential avenues of mitigation on behalf of a client in order to make a decision that can be fairly characterized as a reasonable strategic choice. This, however, has always been the rule under Strickland, and the particular quantum of knowledge required depends on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Secondly, even if Williams did establish such a per se rule, it would not have been "clearly established" within the meaning of § 2254, as the Williams case was decided more than a year after the Maryland Court of Appeals' decision here. See Booth-El v. Nuth, 288 F.3d 571 (4th Cir. 2002). Finally, despite the district court's contention to the contrary, we are of opinion that Wiggins' counsel made a reasonable strategic decision and neither Williams, as it may apply here, nor any of Strickland's other progeny, require a different conclusion.
Wiggins' sentencing counsel, Mr. Schlaich, did know about Wiggins' difficult childhood, as the district court acknowledged. Wiggins v. Corcoran, 164 F.Supp.2d at 559. During the evidentiary hearing in the Maryland courts, Mr. Schlaich stated that he knew of some of the details of Wiggins' childhood as they existed in the presentence investigation report and social services records which he had seen. He knew, for example, that Wiggins had been removed from his natural mother as a result of a finding of neglect and abuse; that there were reports of sexual abuse at one of his foster homes; that he had had his hands burned as a child as a result of his mother's abuse; that there had been homosexual overtures made toward him by a job corps supervisor; and that he was borderline mentally retarded. So any inference that his knowledge and investigation was merely casual or offhand is simply not so. Although further investigation would have developed more extensive details of Wiggins' childhood, the extant records did inform Schlaich of a possible avenue of mitigation. The district court concluded, however, that the knowledge Schlaich gained through these reports put him on notice and required him to inquire further. This was error. When considering claims of ineffectiveness, "[w]e address not what is prudent or appropriate, but only what is constitutionally compelled." Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776, 794, 107 S.Ct. 3114, 97 L.Ed.2d 638 (1987) (quoting United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 665, n. 38, 104 S.Ct. 2039, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984)). In this connection, the Supreme Court has indicated that "strategic choices made after less than complete investigation are reasonable precisely to the extent that reasonable professional judgments support limitations on investigation." Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. at 794, 107 S.Ct. 3114. The Maryland Court of Appeals determined that Schlaich's knowledge of potential mitigation avenues was sufficient to make an informed strategic choice. We think that the Maryland Court of Appeals' decision in this regard was reasonable.
The attorneys viewed the case against Wiggins at the guilt phase to be quite flimsy. Furthermore, because of the conflicting medical testimony as to time of death, the lack of direct physical evidence affirmatively placing Wiggins in Florence Lacs' apartment, and existence of other evidence, such as the Ryder hat found in Mrs. Lacs' apartment, Schlaich "believed that [Wiggins'] best hope of escaping the death penalty was for one or more of the jurors to entertain a reasonable doubt as to," 724 A.2d at 15, whether Wiggins was the actual killer. Add to that the stipulated fact of Wiggins' clear record. On the other hand was Wiggins' social history. As stated above, Schlaich had knowledge of some of Wiggins' social history from the presentence investigation report and social services records and likely knew that additional development would have resulted in more sordid details surfacing. Nonetheless, Schlaich decided that social history evidence was problematic in that it tended to conflict with any attack on principalship: Counsel would present a picture to the jury of an innocent man, notwithstanding his murder conviction, and then, to the same factfinder, argue that if he was the principal, then the jury should be lenient because of his difficult childhood. Schlaich was aided by the fact that the guilt trial had not been before the jury, which was an advantage, as the Maryland Court recognized. 724 A.2d at 16-17. Alternative arguments are common in the law, but there is no authority that requires that an attorney use them. Indeed, the choice between arguments, limited, perhaps by the client's express wishes, seems to be the very essence of counsel's function in any context. Cf. Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 103 S.Ct. 3308, 77 L.Ed.2d 987 (1983) (holding that defense counsel assigned to prosecute appeal from criminal conviction does not have constitutional duty to raise every nonfrivolous issue requested by defendant).
Finally, we note that there is nothing in Strickland or its progeny to suggest that even if Schlaich had investigated further that he would have been required to present the evidence thus developed in addition to, or instead of his chosen strategy. On the contrary, the Supreme Court has found it reasonable to rely on other strategies during capital sentencing proceedings notwithstanding counsel's possession of other mitigating evidence, especially where that evidence is equivocal. See Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. at 792-93, 107 S.Ct. 3114 (1987) (failure to put on unhappy childhood evidence reasonable where helpfulness was in doubt); Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 186, 106 S.Ct. 2464, 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986) (counsel's failure to put on psychiatric mitigating evidence reasonable where such evidence may have opened door to prosecution to rebut with evidence of capability to commit the crime charged). The Supreme Court has held that counsel is not ineffective for failing to introduce evidence that would have hurt as much as it helped. Darden, 477 U.S. at 186-87, 106 S.Ct. 2464; see also Howard v. Moore, 131 F.3d 399, 421 (4th Cir.1997) (en banc). Indeed, whether a particular bit of evidence is mitigating is often "in the eye of the beholder." Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. at 794, 107 S.Ct. 3114 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Likewise, in this case, not all of the available social history evidence is unequivocally mitigating. Here, the jury could just as easily have viewed Wiggins' childhood and limited mental capacity as an indicator of future lawlessness. See, e.g., Barnes v. Thompson, 58 F.3d 971, 980-1 (4th Cir. 1995) (failure to introduce evidence of childhood abuse or mental impairment not ineffective where counsel concluded evidence could have been used by jury to make finding of future dangerousness).
As we have stated, "[t]rial counsel is too frequently placed in a no-win situation with respect to possible mitigating evidence at the sentencing phase of a capital case. The failure to put on such evidence, or the presentation of evidence which then backfires, may equally expose counsel to collateral charges of ineffectiveness. The best course for a federal habeas court is to credit plausible strategic judgments in the trial of a state case." Bunch v. Thompson, 949 F.2d 1354, 1364 (4th Cir.1991). The district court failed to heed this admonition. Schlaich stated that he chose to focus on one theory of Wiggins' case at sentencing because the "shotgun approach" often confuses the issues and works to the detriment of the defendant. In Schlaich's professional judgment, then, avoidance of conflicting arguments supported limited investigation into social history. The Maryland Court of Appeals found his judgment sound on the basis of the factual record before it, and even if we were of opinion that the Maryland Court's decision was in error, we cannot say that it was unreasonable.
Under the Maryland statutory scheme, the proof concerning guilt required at a capital sentencing hearing is different from the proof required at the guilt or innocence stage of the trial. At the guilt or innocence stage, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of first degree murder. However, at the sentencing stage, the State must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the actual perpetrator of the murder. In other words, under Maryland law, he must be a principal in the first degree. See Md.Code Art. 27, § 413(e)(1); Md. Rule 4-343(3). "[T]he jury [at sentencing] still is required to make its own determination, unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt, that appellant was the actual killer."Wiggins v. State, 352 Md. 580, 724 A.2d 1, 15 (Md.1999).
AlthoughJackson announced the appropriate standard for sufficiency of the evidence review in habeas corpus cases, the Maryland court of appeals found it applicable to direct appeals in Tichnell v. State, 287 Md. 695, 415 A.2d 830, 842 (Md.1980), and subsequently applied it on direct appeal of Wiggins' conviction. This is the same method of analysis utilized by the Supreme Court in United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 67, 105 S.Ct. 471, 83 L.Ed.2d 461 (1984), a case on direct appeal. There the Court equated the "substantial evidence" standard of Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942), also a direct appeal case, with Jackson's rationality test. See United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 67, 105 S.Ct. 471, 83 L.Ed.2d 461 (1984) ("Sufficiency-of-the evidence review involves assessment by the courts of whether the evidence adduced at trial could support any rational determination of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.") (citing Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942), and Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)).
The Maryland rule which the trial judge considered in this case is more favorable to defendants than the federal rule. CompareWilson v. State, 319 Md. 530, 573 A.2d 831, 834 (Md.1990), with Jackson, 443 U.S. at 320, 99 S.Ct. 2781.
The district court began itsJackson analysis by stating that only one piece of evidence supported an inference that Wiggins murdered Lacs, namely his possession of Mrs. Lacs' property. 164 F.Supp.2d at 554. However, the court stated that Wiggins' conviction could not be sustained on that basis, because the trial judge had refused to draw that very inference. Stating that the Maryland Court of Appeals appeared to rely on that inference to affirm, the district court reasoned that it would be a violation of due process "for an appellate court, in affirming a conviction, to rely upon an inference that is only permissible and that was expressly rejected by the finder of fact." Accordingly, the district court proceeded to examine the record facts for other evidence of guilt, finding none. The district court, however, misapprehended the finding of the Maryland trial court and also the decision of the Maryland Court of Appeals. To repeat, what Judge Hinkel decided with respect to the recently stolen property follows:
the factfinder's role as weigher of the evidence is preserved through a conclusion that upon judicial review all of the evidence is to be considered in the light most favorable to the prosecution. 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781 (italics in original).
And this quotation from Jackson was more recently repeated in Wright v. West, 505 U.S. 277, 296, 112 S.Ct. 2482, 120 L.Ed.2d 225 (1992). The fact that the Maryland trial court did not rely on any presumption, in our opinion, did not prevent that court from its reliance on all of the evidence in the case, which included, among many other items, the fact that Mrs. Lacs' automobile, credit cards, and ring had been stolen at a time contemporaneous with her murder and that Wiggins was present at her house at that time.
The district court didnot find counsel ineffective with respect to the conviction, only as to the sentencing.
Because we find that the Maryland Court of Appeals' decision regarding ineffectiveness was reasonable, we need not address the second prong in theStrickland analysis.
The court's opinion in this case fully states the record evidence and persuasively demonstrates why the State court did not act unreasonably in applying Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), to deny Wiggins relief on his first claim. As an additional reason for reaching this conclusion, I would note that from the condition of Florence Lacs' apartment, a reasonable jury could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that whoever ransacked Florence Lacs' apartment and robbed her also murdered her. Because the evidence convincingly points to the fact that Wiggins robbed Lacs on April 15 and, within hours, was using the products of this robbery, the jury could reasonably find that Wiggins also murdered Lacs. Wiggins' only explanation — that he found Lacs' Chevrolet on September 16 with the keys, credit cards, and a diamond ring in it — is belied by the fact that Wiggins is directly linked to the car and the credit cards during the evening of September 15. I find the question of whether the State court reasonably applied Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), to conclude that Wiggins received adequate assistance of counsel during the sentencing phase of his trial to be a closer call. Both of my colleagues are satisfied that the decision not to introduce mitigating evidence was consistent with a strategic decision made by Wiggins' counsel not to imply any confession of guilt and to seek to have the jury hesitate on the death sentence because of a hoped-for hesitation on liability. It appears to me, however, that counsel could have had it both ways. He could have insisted on arguing liability and still have maintained that any sentence of death would be inconsistent with the mitigating circumstances of Wiggins' miserable upbringing and marginal intelligence. But in the end, this may be only a luxury of hindsight. There is support in the record from which to conclude that Wiggins' counsel's decision was a tactical one and that it was not an unreasonable strategy to pursue. With less confidence, therefore, I also concur in the court's opinion that the State court reasonably concluded that Wiggins was provided effective assistance of counsel during the sentencing phase of his trial.
In short, because the State court's refusal to grant relief was neither contrary to clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court, nor involved an unreasonable application of that law, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), I agree that Wiggins' petition should have been denied by the district court. Therefore, I concur in the thorough opinion prepared for the court by Judge Widener.
Home288 f3d 629 wiggins v. r corcoran w j