Matthew Reeves v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, No. 19-11779 (11th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on November 10, 2020.
Download PDF
USCA11 Case: 19-11779 Date Filed: 08/09/2021 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-11779 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cv-00061-KD-MU MATTHEW REEVES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER, ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ________________________ Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama ________________________ (August 9, 2021) Before WILSON, MARTIN, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: In Reeves v. Commissioner, 836 F. App’x 733 (11th Cir. 2020), we rejected the intellectual disability claim of Matthew Reeves—an Alabama death row prisoner—but granted him habeas relief on the ground that his counsel had rendered USCA11 Case: 19-11779 Date Filed: 08/09/2021 Page: 2 of 2 ineffective assistance at the penalty phase. The Supreme Court, however, reversed. It held that the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals did not apply a per se rule requiring the testimony of counsel to establish an ineffectiveness claim, and that its decision rejecting Mr. Reeves’ ineffectiveness claim was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). See Dunn v. Reeves, 141 S. Ct. 2405 (2021). As noted, we previously ruled against Mr. Reeves on his intellectual disability claim. Given the Supreme Court’s decision on the ineffectiveness claim, we now affirm the district court’s denial of habeas relief. AFFIRMED. 2
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.
