Frazier v. Bouchard, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 21603

Frazier was convicted of capital murder in Alabama and sentenced to death after a 10–2 jury death recommendation.
On collateral review, Frazier claimed, as relevant here, that his two court-appointed lawyers ineffectively assisted him by failing to investigate/present mitigating evidence in the penalty phase.
The Alabama circuit court summarily dismissed the Rule 32.6(b) claim as non-specific under Rule 32.7(d); the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals adopted and affirmed.
Frazier then sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; the district court denied relief on two alternative grounds.
The district court later allowed expansion of the record for the relevant claim and held the claim failed on the merits under Strickland.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court on the merits, ruling the procedural bar was not an independent adequate state ground and that Frazier failed to show prejudice under Strickland after AEDPA review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the state court ruling rested on an independent adequate state ground	Frazier argues Rule 32.7(d) dismissal was an independent federal bar	Appellate court relied on state pleading rules, not a substantive bar	Dismissal was not an adequate independent state ground; merits review allowed
Whether the Rule 32.6(b)/Rule 32.7(d) disposition was a merits determination	The ruling addressed the merits by stating lack of specificity	The ruling was procedural but tied to the merits of the claim	Ruling was a merits determination for AEDPA purposes
Whether the district court correctly applied AEDPA deference to Strickland prejudice	Under Strickland and AEDPA, prejudice could be shown by new mitigating evidence	Recordal evidence insufficient to show reasonable probability of a different penalty	AEDPA doubly deferential standard applied; prejudice not shown to meet Strickland standard
Whether there is a reasonable probability the sentence would be life without parole if additional mitigation were presented	New mitigating evidence would have altered the sentencing outcome	Even with mitigation, the prosecution could present additional aggravating evidence; prejudice unlikely	No reasonable probability that outcome would be different; habeas relief denied

Powell v. Allen, 602 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 2010) (Rule 32.6(b) dismissal reviewed on the merits)
Borden v. Allen, 646 F.3d 785 (11th Cir. 2011) (Rule 32.6(b) adjudication is a merits determination)
Ward v. Hall, 592 F.3d 1144 (11th Cir. 2010) (procedural default doctrine in habeas cases)
Judd v. Haley, 250 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2001) (procedural default and comity concerns)
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (adequacy/independence of state grounds for federal review)
Card v. Dugger, 911 F.2d 1494 (11th Cir. 1990) (independence of state grounds; federal review permitted when state ruling intertwined with federal law)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficiency and prejudice)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (application of Strickland with AEDPA)