Opinion ID: 781545
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: 11 Whether the district court properly granted the writ of habeas corpus is a question of law that we review de novo. Doan v. Brigano, 237 F.3d 722, 729 (6th Cir.2001). The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996), which amended 28 U.S.C. § 2254, applies to all habeas petitions filed after April 24, 1996, the effective date of the Act. Because Mitchell's petition for habeas was filed after the effective date, AEDPA governs our review of this case. 12 Pursuant to AEDPA, a writ of habeas corpus may not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim — 13 (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 14 (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. 15 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The federal court must presume that all determinations of factual issues made by the state court are correct unless the defendant can rebut that presumption by clear and convincing evidence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). 16 The question whether Mitchell was deprived of his right to effective assistance of counsel is a mixed question of law and fact. Olden v. United States, 224 F.3d 561, 565 (6th Cir.2000). In a habeas case, we apply the unreasonable application prong of § 2254(d)(1) to a mixed question of law and fact. Harpster v. Ohio, 128 F.3d 322, 327 (6th Cir.1997). In Terry Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000), the Supreme Court elaborated upon the independent meaning conveyed by the contrary to and unreasonable application of clauses of the statute, as well as the distinct analysis to be performed under each clause. Williams, 529 U.S. at 410, 120 S.Ct. 1495. According to the Court, a federal habeas court may find that the state court decision resulted in an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from this Court's decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner's case. Id. at 413, 120 S.Ct. 1495. The Supreme Court cautioned that a federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly. Rather, that application must also be unreasonable. Id. at 411, 120 S.Ct. 1495. The Williams decision also clarified that in our review of the state court's judgment, we may only look to the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of the Supreme Court's decisions as of the time of the relevant state-court decision to determine whether the state court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law. See id. at 412, 120 S.Ct. 1495. 17 With these guidelines in mind, we turn to the question whether the district court properly granted Mitchell's petition for habeas corpus relief.