Floyd Rayner, III v. David Mills, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 14226

Rayner was convicted in January 2001 by a Tennessee jury of five counts of rape of a child and five counts of aggravated sexual battery, receiving an effective 51-year sentence with some terms consecutive.
The victim testified she was abused by Rayner on multiple occasions including touching, penetration, and oral acts; medical proof showed the victim had trichomoniasis, but no evidence Rayner had the disease.
Defense theory centered on the victim lying about the abuse and defense argued about transmission of trichomoniasis by non-sexual means; the State introduced no proof that Rayner himself had trichomoniasis.
On collateral review Rayner raised ineffective assistance of counsel claims (failure to investigate, to call witnesses, to pursue a trichomoniasis defense, to obtain a presentence report, and other procedural aspects) and other habeas claims; the district court denied relief but granted a COA on the ineffective-assistance issues.
The Tennessee appellate courts affirmed the convictions and denied relief on sentencing issues; the federal district court conducted an evidentiary hearing and denied the petition, with the COA narrower to ineffectiveness claims; the Sixth Circuit ultimately affirmed the district court’s denial of the habeas petition.
Rayner v. State, No. M2005-01672-CCA-R3-PC, 2006 WL 2000701 ( Tenn. Crim. App. July 19, 2006).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether AEDPA deferential review applies to unaddressed Strickland prongs	Rayner argues deference applies to all addressed prongs	Respondent argues deference applies per Harrington framework	Defer to adjudicated prong; review unadjudicated prong de novo
Counsel’s failure to test for trichomoniasis and present results	Counsel failed to pursue a medical defense	Counsel reasonably chose strategy; testing would not exonerate	No ineffective-assistance error; reasonable strategy under Strickland
Failure to call Ramsey and Nealson as witnesses	Witness testimony could have aided defense	Counsel investigated; prejudice not shown	No prejudice; unproven benefits do not establish deficient performance
Failure to include presentence report on direct appeal	Omission prejudiced review of sentencing issues	Prejudice not shown; report would not have altered outcome on appeal	No prejudice; no reversible error under Strickland
Procedural default of wife-trichomoniasis claim	Claim is exhausted and merits review	Claim procedurally defaulted; not properly exhausted	Procedural default; not excused; merits not reached

Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (U.S. 2005) (prejudice reviewed de novo when state court denies counsel’s claim on deficiency)
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (U.S. 2003) (deference issues when state court did not address prongs on habeas review)
Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (S. Ct. 2011) (summary dismissals; framework for review after Harrington)
Davis v. Lafler, 658 F.3d 525 (6th Cir. 2011) (en banc; follow Wiggins on unadjudicated prong)
Rice v. White, 660 F.3d 242 (6th Cir. 2011) (post-Harrington approach to prongs)
Sussman v. Jenkins, 642 F.3d 532 (11th Cir. 2011) (discusses Harrington interplay among prongs)
Porter v. McCollum, 130 S. Ct. 447 (S. Ct. 2010) (cites deference principles in capital cases)
Brown v. McKee, 460 F. App’x 567 (6th Cir. 2012) (applies Wiggins deference framework)