Opinion ID: 42478
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Failure to assess counsel errors cumulatively

Text: Cannady seeks to magnify his individual ineffectiveness claims with a plea of cumulative error. The district court recognized that “cumulative error may provide a basis for habeas relief if the cumulative effect of the errors was to deny the defendant due process.” Cannady, No. C-01-273, slip op. at 26 (citation omitted). Such errors must “amount to ‘the failure to observe that fundamental fairness essential to the very concept of justice,’” and “‘must be of such quality as necessarily prevent a fair trial.’” Id. (quoting Lisenba v. California, 314 U.S. 219, 236, 62 S. Ct. 280, 290 (1941)). In light of the fact that each of Cannady’s ineffectiveness claims failed to satisfy at least one of 1 It is unlikely that a Ring challenge can be made to Texas’s procedure of entrusting the jury alone with a capital punishment decision. Further, Apprendi has yet to be applied to prior convictions. 2 See Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348, 358, 124 S. Ct. 2519, 2526 (2004) (“Ring announced a new procedural rule that does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review.”); United States v. Brown, 305 F.3d 304, 310 (5th Cir. 2002) (holding that the procedural rule announced in Apprendi is not retroactively applicable to AEDPA petitioners). 12 the elements of Strickland, and considering the overwhelming evidence that Cannady beat Bonal to death while serving life sentences for two other murders, the district court reasonably concluded that the alleged errors did not prevent a fair trial. As reasonable jurists could not debate the district court’s resolution of this contention, we will not issue a COA.