489 F. App'x 618
3d Cir.2012Background
- Moore challenges district court denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition alleging ineffective assistance of state-court trial counsel for failing to interview or call Jessup.
- Trial in 2000: Moore convicted of second-degree murder and related offenses after witness Lamb testified Moore shot Cedano.
- State PCRA history spans multiple petitions; Jessup potential testimony was raised but not compelled by counsel; Finley letter indicated no meritorious issues to appeal.
- Superior Court and Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied relief preliminarily, noting lack of evidence that Tinari knew of Jessup or that she would testify favorably.
- Moore filed habeas petition during PCRA proceedings; district court stayed and later denied relief; appellate court appointed counsel and retained sole issue on Jessup claim.
- Court conducts de novo review under AEDPA, concluding state court adjudicated the claim on the merits and that relief is not warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion and default of the trial-counsel claim | Moore | Moore | State-merits adjudication allows merits review despite default |
| Whether the Superior Court's ruling on trial-counsel effectiveness was an unreasonable application of Strickland | Moore | Tinari/State | Not unreasonable; no prejudice shown |
| Whether Jessup's testimony would have changed the outcome | Moore | State | No reasonable probability of different result |
| AEDPA deferential review applicability | Moore | State | AEDPA deference applies; no relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes standard for deficient performance and prejudice)
- Lewis v. Mazurkiewicz, 915 F.2d 106 (3d Cir. 1990) (reasonableness of witness interviews)
- Commonwealth v. Fulton, 830 A.2d 567 (Pa. 2003) (Pa. test for witness-calling deficiency)
- Albrecht v. Horn, 485 F.3d 103 (3d Cir. 2007) (state-court merits adjudication under AEDPA)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (U.S. 2011) (limits evidentiary consideration under § 2254(d)(1))
- Carpenter v. Vaughn, 296 F.3d 138 (3d Cir. 2002) (exhaustion and fair presentation requirements)