JOHNSON v. BASINGER, 2:10-cv-00109

Johnson was convicted of murder and attempted murder in an Indiana state court and sentenced to 95 years.
His convictions and direct-appeal proceedings were affirmed in Johnson I (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) and the Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer in 2005.
Johnson’s post-conviction relief petition was denied and affirmed on appeal (Ind. Ct. App. 2009); the Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer in 2010.
Johnson filed a federal habeas corpus petition under AEDPA after its effective date, seeking relief and a certificate of appealability.
The district court reviewed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), addressing whether the state court’s decision was contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law or based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.
The court denied the petition with prejudice and denied a certificate of appealability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
IAC claim (diminished capacity and witness-record)	Johnson asserts ineffective assistance of trial counsel.	Basing on state-law record, no federal error shown; proper presentation and strategic decisions argue against relief.	Denied; no federal constitutional error established.
Transferred intent instruction and involuntary manslaughter instruction	Transferred-intent instruction violated due process; failure to give involuntary manslaughter instruction was error.	Indiana Court of Appeals’ determination was reasonable; state-law error not cognizable on federal habeas review; no due process violation shown.	Denied on both grounds; federal review limited to federal questions.
Prosecutorial misconduct	Prosecutor’s comments about the appeals process amounted to misconduct affecting fairness.	Procedural default; Indiana Supreme Court decision on forfeiture forecloses merits review.	Denied; procedural default bars merits review.
IAC — exhaustion and fair presentation requirement	Fairly presented federal claims in state court.	Johnson failed to present the federal claims in a manner that satisfies fair presentation requirements.	Denied; claims procedurally defaulted or not fairly presented.

Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (1997) (AEDPA standard governs post-conviction review)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (contrary or unreasonable application standard in § 2254(d)(1))
Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (deference to state court determinations; 'fairminded jurists could disagree' standard)
Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991) (federal habeas relief requires federal constitutional error, not merely state-law error)
Bell v. Cone, 543 U.S. 447 (2005) (burden on petitioner to show fair presentation and procedural viability)
Conner v. McBride, 375 F.3d 643 (2004) (fair presentation and exhaustion requirements in federal habeas review)
Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20 (1992) (presumption of constitutional regularity in state convictions)
Szabo v. Walls, 313 F.3d 392 (2003) (procedural default as independent and adequate state ground)