Jose Hernandez v. Warden McFadden, 701 F. App'x 195

Jose Luis Gutierrez Hernandez filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his state conviction and alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
The specific appellate-ineffectiveness claim was that appellate counsel failed to argue the trial court erred by giving an incomplete jury instruction on character evidence.
The South Carolina Supreme Court summarily refused review of Hernandez’s appeal, so the federal court evaluated the state trial court’s postconviction ruling on the ineffective-assistance claim.
The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denied Hernandez’s § 2254 petition; Hernandez appealed and obtained a partial certificate of appealability limited to the character-instruction/appellate-counsel issue.
The Fourth Circuit reviewed the denial de novo under the AEDPA framework and applied Strickland’s two-prong test for ineffective assistance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not arguing trial court gave an incomplete character jury instruction	Hernandez: counsel’s omission was deficient and prejudiced the outcome	State: Hernandez cannot show prejudice under Strickland; counsel’s omission not unreasonable	The court affirmed that Hernandez failed to show prejudice; state court’s application of Strickland was not unreasonable
Whether federal relief is available under AEDPA when state court adjudicated claim on the merits	Hernandez: federal relief warranted because state ruling misapplied federal law	State: AEDPA limits relief; state court decisions entitled to deference unless unreasonable	The court applied AEDPA deference and found no unreasonable application of clearly established federal law
Whether certificate of appealability (COA) should issue for other claims	Hernandez sought broader COA	State argued COA improper for remaining claims	Court denied COA for remaining claims and dismissed those portions of the appeal
Whether oral argument was necessary	Hernandez did not request; COA limited	State argued record sufficient	Court dispensed with oral argument as unnecessary

Grueninger v. Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, 813 F.3d 517 (4th Cir. 2016) (addresses review scope when state supreme court summarily refuses review)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (explains AEDPA’s highly deferential standard for federal habeas review)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)