Borden v. Allen, No. 09-14322 (11th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of capital murder stemming from the shooting death of his estranged wife and father-in-law in front of his three children. Defendant sought a writ of habeas corpus vacating his death sentence on the ground that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase of his murder trial in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. The court held that defendant failed to establish that the judgment of the court of appeals was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court and that the judgment was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented. Therefore, the court held that defendant was not entitled to habeas corpus relief and recounted the facts that led to his conviction and the reasons why the Court of Criminal Appeals rejected his claim that his attorneys' performance was constitutionally deficient.
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.