Slocum v. Kelley, No. 16-1175 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePetitioner was convicted of second-degree murder, endangering the welfare of a minor, and fleeing. The district court denied habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254, but granted a certificate of appealability on whether petitioner had a substantial claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a competency hearing and failing to present mitigating evidence during the sentencing phase. The court found no evidence in the record that petitioner suffered a mental illness, and thus counsel was not deficient for failing to request a competency hearing. The court also concluded that counsel provided constitutionally adequate assistance despite not presenting potentially mitigating evidence of which she had not been apprised. In this case, had petitioner testified, the State would have attacked his credibility and introduced the details of his prior crimes. Furthermore, because petitioner would not permit his wife to testify, counsel had no other witness through which to present mitigating evidence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Smith, Author, with Wollman and Benton, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - habeas. The district court did not err in finding Slocum's claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a competency hearing and failing to present mitigating evidence during the sentencing phase of his murder trial were procedurally defaulted; there was no objective evidence that Slocum suffered from any medical illness and his attorney was not deficient for failing to request a competency hearing; counsel's failure to present any mitigating evidence during sentencing did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness; the decision not to have Slocum testify was a reasonable strategic decision given his lack of credibility and prior record; further, since Slocum refused to let his wife testify, counsel had not other witness who could present mitigating evidence.
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.