Frazier v. Warden Bouchard, et al., No. 08-16161 (11th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, who was convicted of capital murder, appealed the district court's denial of habeas relief on two alternative grounds. First, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals rested its decision on independent and adequate state procedural grounds when it relied on Rules 32.6(b) and 32.7(d) of the Alabama Rule of Criminal Procedure to dispose of the relevant claim, thereby precluding federal review. Second, even if these procedural grounds did not preclude the district court from considering the relevant claims on the merits, 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1) barred habeas relief because the Court of Criminal Appeal's decision was neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington. While the district court erred in finding that petitioner had procedurally defaulted the relevant claim, the court agreed with that court's alternative holding that, through the lens of section 2254, petitioner was unable to carry the burden of demonstrating that his attorneys' allegedly ineffective assistance of counsel prejudiced the sentencing phase of his criminal proceedings, as required by Strickland.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.