Opinion ID: 77042
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Conviction Issues — Evidentiary Hearing

Text: 315 As noted earlier, the district court did conduct an evidentiary hearing on the following three guilt-phase issues: (1) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel on direct appeal; (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel; and (3) the state's violations of the constitutional requirements of Brady and Giglio. The district court considered the merits of these three claims and concluded that none of these claims warranted habeas relief. 316 In this case, the state courts denied the defendant's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims based solely on the prejudice prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). 29 However, after the evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the defendant's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims based solely on the performance prong of Strickland. The district court also concluded that the defendant failed to establish prejudice from any Brady violations, and failed to show any Giglio violations. These different conclusions ordinarily warrant different deference. 317 As for the district court's conclusions regarding the performance prong of Strickland, we engage in de novo review and do not defer to the state court because it did not rule on the performance prong (thus, there is nothing to defer to as to that sub-issue). However, as to the prejudice prong and the state court's ultimate denial of the defendant's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims, we may grant habeas relief only if the state court's resolution of these issues was: (1) contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) . . . 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). 318 The fact that the district court held an evidentiary hearing may add a potential wrinkle to AEDPA's deference. Some courts have concluded that the fact that a district court holds an evidentiary hearing in accordance with AEDPA does not alter the federal standard of review; that is, courts are still required to apply the deference mandated in § 2254(d). See Matheney v. Anderson, 377 F.3d 740, 747 (7th Cir.2004) ([O]ur case law is clear in holding that § 2254(d) is applicable even though the district court held an evidentiary hearing. The evidence obtained in such a hearing is quite likely to bear on the reasonableness of the state courts' adjudication but we do not see why it should alter the standard of federal review. (internal quotation marks, citations, and ellipsis omitted)); Valdez v. Cockrell, 274 F.3d 941, 946-47, 951-52 (5th Cir.2001) (Where a district court elects, in instances not barred by § 2254(e)(2), to hold an evidentiary hearing, the hearing may assist the district court in ascertaining whether the state court reached an unreasonable determination under either § 2254(d)(1) or (d)(2). An evidentiary hearing is not an exercise in futility just because §§ 2254(d) and (e)(1) require deference.). On the other hand, some courts have concluded, at least in certain instances, that AEDPA's requirement of deference to state court determinations is not applicable when the federal evidentiary hearing reveals new evidence that was not considered by the state court. See Monroe v. Angelone, 323 F.3d 286, 297 (4th Cir.2003) (AEDPA's deference requirement does not apply when a claim made on federal habeas review is premised on Brady material that has surfaced for the first time during federal proceedings.); see also Holland v. Jackson, 542 U.S. 649, 124 S.Ct. 2736, 2738, 159 L.Ed.2d 683 (2004); Miller v. Champion, 161 F.3d 1249, 1254 (10th Cir.1998). 30 319 We need not decide what effect, if any, the federal evidentiary hearing in this case has on our standard of review because whether we engage in de novo review or apply the deference mandated in § 2254(d), we conclude that the district court properly denied habeas relief as to the defendant's guilt-phase claims. In addition to determining that none of the defendant's guilt-phase claims warrants habeas relief, we also conclude that only two of his claims warrant additional discussion.