Opinion ID: 164247
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to investigate the negotiation of the check by Ms. Carriger

Text: 58 Next, Mr. Miller contends counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the date of the negotiation of the check written by Stephanie Carriger to Mr. Miller. The check was used by the prosecution to establish that Mr. Miller in fact visited the Central Plaza Hotel hours before the homicide, on the evening of September 16, 1994. 59 Mr. Miller's postconviction counsel discovered that Mr. Miller cashed the check from Mrs. Carriger on September 16, 1994. Doc. 32, ex.3. The bank must have accepted the check during the bank's business hours on September 16, 1994. There is no dispute that Mr. Miller received the check after the night he visited the Central Plaza hotel. Thus, the date of the check's negotiation indicates that in fact Mr. Miller's visit to the Central Plaza Hotel preceded the close of business on September 16, 1994. Because there is no dispute that the check was negotiated after Mr. Miller's visit to the Central Plaza hotel with Mr. Carriger and Mr. Collman, those who recalled the date of the trip as being on the night of September 16, 1994, including Mr. Miller, were in error. 60 Mr. Miller contends that the fact that the check was negotiated before the date of the crime would have undermined the testimony of those who recalled Mr. Miller being at the hotel shortly before the crime. The State points out that Mr. Miller told his attorney that he went to the hotel with Mr. Carriger and Mr. Collman on the night of the murder. In addition, counsel relied on statements provided by Mr. Carriger, Mr. Collman, and Mrs. Carriger that supported Mr. Miller's statements. Although investigation of the check might have proven helpful, standing alone, under Strickland, counsel's failure to do so cannot be said to have prejudiced Mr. Miller. 61 c. Failure to object to the prosecutor's closing argument regarding the purported JAy and J identification in the blood smears 62 Mr. Miller next contends that counsel's failure to object to the JAy comments was ineffective. We recognize that often, any effort by the State to deflect responsibility for prosecutorial misconduct or to discount the resultant prejudice by blaming defense counsel for not objecting to/curing the errors would support petitioner's case for relief in connection with his associated allegations of ineffective assistance. Cargle, 317 F.3d at 1217. 63 Here, however, we have already addressed the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals' determination that the prosecutor's use of the transparencies was not plain error. Even assuming defense counsel was deficient in failing to object to the prosecutor's final closing arguments, Mr. Miller cannot establish that there is reasonable probability the jury would have acquitted him. See Spears v. Mullin, 343 F.3d 1215, 1249 (10th Cir.2003) (Even assuming defense counsel was deficient in failing to make these objections, [the defendant] again cannot establish that, had the prosecutor not made these comments, there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have acquitted him of first-degree murder.). There is ample evidence in the record to support the jury's verdict. 64 Because we hold that Mr. Miller's ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim lacked merit, his appellate counsel was not objectively unreasonable in failing to assert any portion of these claims on direct appeal. See Cargle, 317 F.3d at 1202. Thus, we reject Mr. Miller's ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims. 65