Charles v. Stephens, No. 12-70016 (5th Cir. 2013)Annotate this Case
Petitioner, convicted of murdering three people and sentenced to death, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 application. At issue was whether petitioner was prejudiced by his counsel's deficient performance at trial because counsel allegedly failed to investigate potential mitigating evidence. Even assuming that the state habeas court unreasonably applied Strickland v. Washington's deficiency prong, the court was not persuaded that the state habeas court unreasonably applied the prejudice prong. The court concluded the state habeas court's decision was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established law and that the state habeas court's decision was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.