Landrum v. Mitchell
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23035
| 6th Cir. | 2010Background
- 1986 conviction for aggravated murder and aggravated burglary; jury recommended death; Ohio courts affirmed; Landrum filed state post-conviction petitions and federal habeas petition years later; district court granted relief on guilt-phase IAC based on Coffenberger testimony; on appeal, Sixth Circuit held defaulted and reversed grant on that ground; other habeas claims were denied or not reached.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Guilt-phase IAC—default and excusing cause | Landrum argues trial counsel should have admitted Coffenberger’s confession. | Warden contends claim was procedurally defaulted and no cause shown. | Claim procedurally defaulted; no valid cause to excuse; reversal of conditional writ on this basis. |
| Effect of Swackhammer immunity issue on federal review | Landrum contends immunity denial violated federal rights. | Warden argues no federal right to compel immunization; state-law issue. | No federal constitutional right; claim not reviewable to grant relief. |
| Remaining guilt-phase IAC claims lack merit | Landrum asserts various failures to investigate, witness, or present experts. | State asserts lack of prejudice and strategic choices. | Claims without prejudice or not proven to meet Strickland standard. |
| Continuance denial in trial and mitigation phases | Landrum claims continuances were necessary for defense investigations. | State argues denial was reasonable; no prejudice shown. | Not unconstitutional; no reversible prejudice shown. |
| Mitigation-phase and independent psychological expert claims | Landrum alleges deficient mitigation investigation and need for independent psychologist. | State argues lack of new evidence and strategic choices; no prejudice. | Procedurally defaulted or not shown to prejudice; no relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991) (federal habeas review limited to constitutional claims)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent standard)
- Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478 (1986) (causation for procedural default and ineffective assistance as cause)
- O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (1999) (fair presentment requirement in state courts)
- Maupin v. Smith, 785 F.2d 135 (6th Cir. 1986) (commanding Maupin four-part test for state procedural bars)
- Monzo v. Edwards, 281 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2002) (Rule 26(B) timing and exhaustion considerations)
- Parker v. Bagley, 543 F.3d 859 (6th Cir. 2008) (timeliness of Rule 26(B) motions; good cause standards)
- Fautenberry v. Mitchell, 515 F.3d 614 (6th Cir. 2008) (firm establishment of Rule 26(B) timeliness)