Opinion ID: 1390030
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Re Kenneth Koon is Denied on the Merits

Text: Similarly, the Court denies any claims of ineffective assistance of counsel claim as did the California Supreme Court regarding Mr. Koon. (Pet. at 58-61.) This Court defers to the denial of the claim on the merits by the California Supreme Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) and also under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). (Answer, Ex. 3.) The state court's denial of Petitioner's claim on the merits is not contrary to federal law as enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), and does not rest with an unreasonable determination of the facts within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). At trial, the link between Roper, Furrow, and Koon was noted in an in-chambers conference with counsel when defense counsel was provided with the report about mental patient, Wisely and Koon. (97 RT 5324-25.) Counsel was given time to review the new information to determine how to proceed. (97 RT 5325.) The main connection between Koon and Furrow is Diana Roper. Roper met Koon about a week after Furrow left her which was a week after the murders, and she later married Koon. (Answer, Ex. 54 at 1.) Defense trial counsel cannot be faulted for a strategic decision not to call Roper at trial. During the time of the murders, Roper was using methamphetamine on a daily basis and in the midst of breaking up with Furrow knowing he was having sexual relations with one of her childhood friends, Debbie Glasgow. (Answer, Ex. 53; Ex. 37.) What Koon knew about Furrow was hearsay from Roper. (Answer, Ex. 54 at 2.) Such strategic decisions at trial to avoid having Roper, her friends, or Furrow's relatives testify concerning the coveralls, tennis shoes or Roper's relationship with Koon and Furrow are not grounds for a Strickland claim under these circumstances. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Petitioner has failed to show that his counsel was deficient. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052. As both the California Supreme Court and this Court have already expressly found, Petitioner `received an extraordinarily vigorous and able defense.' Cooper I, 92-CV-427, Aug. 25, 1997 Order at 8 (quoting Cooper, 53 Cal.3d at 824, 281 Cal.Rptr. 90, 809 P.2d 865). Moreover, both this Court and the California Supreme Court found the combination of evidence of Petitioner's guilt to be overwhelming. Cooper I, 92-CV-427, Aug. 25, 1997 Order at 8 (quoting Cooper, 53 Cal.3d at 836, 281 Cal.Rptr. 90, 809 P.2d 865). Defense counsel was not deficient and Petitioner was not prejudiced as the post-conviction DNA testing has confirmed Petitioner's guilt. Accordingly, the California Supreme Court's decision rejecting the merits of Petitioner's claim is not contrary to federal law, nor an unreasonable determination of the facts. Therefore, the Court DENIES this claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).