Price v. Allen, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9523

Price was convicted on February 5, 1993 of capital felony murder during a robbery in Fayette County, Alabama.
The jury recommended death by a 10–2 vote and the trial court imposed death; direct appeals by Price and Alabama high courts were denied and the U.S. Supreme Court denied cert.
Price filed state post-conviction relief under Rule 32; federal habeas proceedings were stayed pending state proceedings, and the district court denied some claims while allowing others to proceed.
On direct appeal, the state appellate court upheld the denial of his motion for a change of venue, finding pretrial publicity not sufficiently prejudicial.
Price challenged trial counsel’s handling of the venue motion as ineffective; the Alabama appellate court dismissed the Strickland claim for lack of deficient performance or prejudice.
In the sentencing phase, Price claimed ineffective assistance for failing to investigate mitigation; the state appellate court held counsel’s strategy reasonable and found no prejudice, and Price challenged prosecutorial comments on future dangerousness as not rendering the trial fundamentally unfair.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Change of venue denial	Price argues prejudice requiring venue change due to local publicity.	Allen contends publicity was not pervasive enough to taint the venire.	Affirmed; no due-process violation or unreasonable application of law.
Ineffective assistance re: venue motion	Price claims trial counsel failed to adequately investigate and argue venue issues.	Allen contends counsel reasonably litigated the motion and did not prejudice Price.	Affirmed; no Strickland prejudice shown.
Prosecution's future dangerousness statements	Prosecutor's comments during penalty phase violated Eighth Amendment and due process.	State court concluded statements were about general deterrence and not a death-eligible future risk.	Affirmed; statements not shown to render sentencing fundamentally unfair.
Ineffective assistance in penalty phase	Counsel failed to adequately investigate mitigation and hire experts, affecting sentencing.	State court found no prejudice and reasonable strategic decisions; evidence insufficient to show a different outcome.	Affirmed; prejudice not demonstrated under Strickland.

Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (U.S. 1961) (impartial jury right; preconceived notions alone not enough)
Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794 (U.S. 1975) (press publicity without due process prejudice must be brinked by circumstances)
Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723 (U.S. 1963) (blatantly prejudicial information broadcast before trial)
Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025 (U.S. 1984) (publicity surrounding pretrial proceedings)
Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (U.S. 2005) (duty to investigate in Strickland prejudice analysis for mental health evidence)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (strict scrutiny of state court application of Strickland; clearly established law)
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (U.S. 2003) (duty to investigate; impact of investigation on prejudice)
Price v. State, 725 So.2d 1003 (Ala.Crim.App.1997) (state appellate decision on venue sufficiency)
Ridinger v. United States, None (None) (Not cited in opinion; placeholder to maintain formatting)