Rhode v. Hall, No. 08-16960

In a capital habeas matter, the denial of the petition is affirmed where: 1) the state court of appeals reasonably found that defense counsel thought the penalty phase strategy would involve both mitigation and residual doubt; 2) defendant and the state had the opportunity to present the state habeas court with their version of the facts; 3) the state habeas court did not unreasonably find that counsel's investigation of possible mitigation evidence was adequate; 4) the effectiveness of counsel's representation at sentencing is not an exact derivative of the amount of time counsel spends investigating mitigation evidence; and 5) the evidence that petitioner faulted counsel for not presenting to the jury was potentially aggravating or cumulative.

Read Rhode v. Hall, No. 08-16960

Appellate Information

Filed September 17, 2009

Judges

Per Curiam