Antonio Franklin v. Margaret Bradshaw, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 19633

Antonio Franklin, an Ohio death-row inmate, filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his conviction and death sentence.
A district court denied the petition but granted a certificate of appealability on nine claims, later organized as ten subclaims related to competency, trial continuity, and other errors.
Franklin was charged with 17 counts (aggravated arson, aggravated robbery, aggravated murder) after the 1997 killings of three relatives and arson that followed; he pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity and claimed incompetence to stand trial.
The trial court found him competent at a pretrial hearing; three months later, the jury convicted Franklin on 15 counts and recommended death; Ohio Supreme Court merged certain aggravators and affirmed the death sentence on direct appeal.
Franklin challenged competency at multiple stages (pretrial, during trial, and requests for midtrial hearing), a continuance denial after an arson expert’s death, and various constitutional claims (eighth, equal protection, due process) not all raised in state court; the district court and the Ohio Supreme Court rejected these and AEDPA standards limited federal review.
The court ultimately affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas relief, applying AEDPA’s deferential standard and procedural default rules.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Franklin competent at the pretrial hearing?	Franklin contends the pretrial finding of competence was unreasonable.	Warden argues default and that the state court’s finding was reasonable.	Subclaim defaulted; merits fail
Was Franklin tried while incompetent at trial?	Franklin asserts he was incompetent during trial.	State court found him competent; no retroactive error shown.	Not incompetent; AEDPA review favors state ruling
Should the court have ordered a midtrial competency hearing?	Midtrial hearing was required by evidence of incompetence.	No new evidence necessitated a second hearing; pattern of demeanor questioned as rudeness, not incompetence.	No midtrial hearing required; not contrary to clearly established law
Did denial of a continuance after an arson expert died prejudge the defense?	denial prejudiced defense by delaying replacement expert testimony	The court reasonably weighed circumstances; Yeazell testimony sufficed	No reversible error; denial upheld
Are Franklin's capital- and mental-illness related execution-claims defaulted?	Execution of mentally ill violates Eighth, Equal Protection, Due Process	Claims were not raised in state court; default applies	Default; no cause shown to excuse

Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1993) (standard for competence to stand trial)
Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1966) (duty to conduct competency inquiry when evidence suggests incompetence)
Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (U.S. 1975) (trial court must consider evidence of incompetence; inquiry not automatic)
Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1983) (continuance decisions are within trial court discretion)
Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575 (U.S. 1964) (continuance should be granted where delay is justifiable; requires actual prejudice to defendant)
Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270 (U.S. 1971) (claims not raised in state court are barred unless cause and prejudice)
Wong v. Money, 142 F.3d 313 (6th Cir. 1998) (default rule for capital-case specific reasonable-doubt challenges)
Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1986) (procedural default and exceptions)
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (U.S. 1991) (procedural-default barriers and exceptions)
Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (U.S. 2011) (AEDPA review limits; evidence considered from state-court record)
Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (U.S. 2002) (execution of the mentally retarded prohibited)
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (U.S. 2005) (age-based prohibitions on execution extended to 16- and 17-year-olds)
Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (U.S. 1974) (standard for due process in trial conduct)