Jacques Slocum v. Wendy Kelley, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6571

In 2011 Jacques R. Slocum shot and killed Joe Jackson; he was convicted in Arkansas state court of second-degree murder, endangering a minor, and fleeing and sentenced to 99 years.
Trial counsel LaTonya Austin (later joined by co-counsel Steve Smith) defended on self‑defense; Slocum testified at the guilt phase; defense presented no mitigating evidence at sentencing.
The State introduced prior convictions (Florida manslaughter, etc.) at sentencing but did not provide details; the jury imposed maximum consecutive sentences.
Slocum filed a pro se Rule 37 postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel; the Arkansas Supreme Court dismissed his appeal for a verification defect, creating a procedural default.
Slocum then filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asserting ineffective assistance for (1) failing to request a competency hearing and (2) failing to investigate/present mitigating evidence at sentencing.
The district court found the claims procedurally defaulted but granted a certificate of appealability on whether the claims were substantial under the Martinez v. Ryan exception; the Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding both ineffective-assistance claims meritless.

Issue	Slocum's Argument	State's Argument	Held
1) Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to request a competency hearing?	Austin should have sought an evaluation based on Slocum’s violent charge, prior manslaughter, and traumatic childhood — those were "red flags."	No objective indicia of incompetence existed; Austin observed Slocum as articulate, involved, and competent; co-counsel and prior counsel gave no warning.	Counsel not deficient; no reasonable basis to doubt competence, so Strickland fails.
2) Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to investigate/present mitigating evidence at sentencing?	Counsel should have obtained institutional records (CDC, FDC, ASH) showing abuse, PTSD, psychosis, and manslaughter context to mitigate sentence.	Austin knew only the "basics" (rough foster care); Slocum refused to have his wife testify; counsel reasonably decided Slocum should not testify at sentencing to avoid impeachment and exposing priors.	Counsel’s investigation and strategic decisions were reasonable under Strickland; no deficiency shown.
3) Does Martinez v. Ryan excuse the procedural default so federal habeas review can proceed?	Martinez applies if the underlying ineffective-assistance claims are "substantial."	Martinez inapplicable if claims lack merit or if state collateral proceeding was not an initial-review proceeding.	Claims not substantial because they fail on the merits; Martinez exception does not excuse the default.

Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (narrow exception allowing cause to excuse procedural default where initial-review collateral counsel was ineffective)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑part test for ineffective assistance: deficiency and prejudice)
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (counsel must conduct thorough background investigation for mitigation; deference to reasonable strategic limits)
Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (counsel deficient where obvious leads in prior-conviction file were ignored)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (counsel’s obligation to investigate background for mitigation)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (likelihood of different result must be substantial, not merely conceivable)
Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30 (counsel deficient for failing to investigate mitigation and family interviews)
Gonzalez v. Knowles, 515 F.3d 1006 (no ineffectiveness where mental illness was unlikely and investigation not compelled)
Worthington v. Roper, 631 F.3d 487 (failure to establish either Strickland prong is fatal to claim)