Opinion ID: 2720891
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Review of Strickland claims under AEDPA

Text: Scoggins argues that the state court proceedings violated the Sixth Amendment both because his trial counsel neither interviewed Holbrook before she testified nor contacted Campbell, Price, or Jermaine Campbell to rebut her testimony. To prove a Sixth Amendment violation based on the failings of defense counsel, a petitioner must demonstrate both (1) that 'counsel's performance was deficient,' meaning that 'counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the counsel guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment'; and (2) 'that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.' United States v. Valerio, 676 F.3d 237, 246 (1st Cir. 2012) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)). In assessing the adequacy of appointed counsel, we indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance, see Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, finding deficiency only where, given the facts known [to counsel] at the time, counsel's choice was so patently unreasonable that no competent attorney would have made it. Knight v. Spencer, 447 -7- F.3d 6, 15 (1st Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). And, to establish prejudice, a defendant must demonstrate a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. Adding more to Scoggins's burden in this case are the limitations on our review imposed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), which governs the standards by which we review collateral attacks on state-court convictions. That provision, designed to confirm that state courts are the principal forum for asserting constitutional challenges to state convictions, see Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770, 787 (2011), authorizes us to reverse a state court's adjudication of the merits of a petitioner's legal claim only where the state-court adjudication either: (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Scoggins rests his claim on the argument that the state court's adjudication resulted in a decision constituting an unreasonable application of federal law. He therefore must -8- demonstrate that the state court's ruling on the claim . . . was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement. Richter, 131 S. Ct. at 786-87. Additionally, to the extent that Scoggins's constitutional arguments depend on factual premises the state court rejected, we are required by statute to presume[] . . . correct the state court's factual determinations, leaving to Scoggins the weighty burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); see also Coombs v. Maine, 202 F.3d 14, 18 (1st Cir. 2000). In short, we do not lightly undertake to substitute our judgments for those of the courts of the various sovereign states that fall within our jurisdiction, see, e.g., Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 748 (1991) (Federal intrusions into state criminal trials frustrate both the States' sovereign power to punish offenders and their good-faith attempts to honor constitutional rights.) (internal citation, alteration, and quotations marks omitted), and our review of their work is particularly deferential when the question is counsel's effectiveness. Richter, 131 S. Ct. at 788 (The standards created by Strickland and § 2254(d) are both highly deferential, and when the two apply in tandem, review is doubly so.) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). -9-