Storey v. Vasbinder, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19148

Storey was charged with first-degree murder and firearm possession as an adult after a juvenile waiver; he was about 16 at the crime and 17 at trial.
The prosecution’s case rested largely on three eyewitnesses who testified Storey claimed to have killed Wilson; the trial judge credited their testimony.
Campbell represented Storey at trial and conducted a markedly deficient defense, failing to prepare, review discovery, or subpoena key witnesses; this included waiving Officer Kramer’s testimony and not pursuing a viable defense theory.
Storey’s post-trial and collateral proceedings in state court, including Ginther hearings, culminated in denials of new trials and denials of relief on ineffective-assistance grounds.
In federal habeas petitions (2001 and 2006), Storey asserted ineffective assistance and newly discovered issues; the district court granted relief on appellate counsel ineffectiveness but denied other claims, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial except for the AEDPA, Strickland, and prejudice analysis.
The Sixth Circuit backdrop includes a dispute over whether a petition following a remedial appeal is “second or successive” under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), ultimately adopting the majority rule that it is not second or successive.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Storey’s 2006 petition is second or successive.	Storey asserts post-remedial-appeal petition is not successive.	Respondent argues the petition is successive under § 2244(b).	Not second or successive; petition deemed timely for merits review.
Did Campbell’s performance prejudice Storey under Strickland?	Campbell’s failures prejudiced by inadequate preparation and discovery.	State court findings of no prejudice were reasonable under Strickland.	Prejudice shown; Campbell’s performance was deficient and prejudicial under proper Strickland review.
Was Campbell’s performance deficient under the Strickland standard?	Campbell failed to investigate, review discovery, and present a coherent defense.	State court deemed performance within professional norms.	Yes, deficient; the record shows complete failure to investigate and prepare.
Did any procedural defaults bar Storey’s claims?	Claims were improperly defaulted or not fully adjudicated on the merits.	Defaults appropriately applied; claims lack merit.	Courts properly addressed defaults; merits prevail for habeas relief on ineffective assistance.

Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (Strickland prejudice review is deferential under AEDPA)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes deficient performance and prejudice standards)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (remedies direct appeal; not second or successive petition after remand)
In re Salem, 631 F.3d 809 (6th Cir. 2011) (defines second-or-successive AEDPA standard)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (AEDPA review focuses on state court’s application of clearly established law)
Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011) (limits evidentiary development in § 2254(d)(1) review)
Magwood v. Patterson, 130 S. Ct. 2788 (2010) (distinguishes judgments in successive petitions in same case)
Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S. 637 (1998) (ripe/unclear claims differ in successive petitions)
Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007) (claims not ripe at earlier petition may be unripe)
In re Williams, 444 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. 2006) (majority rule on remanded petitions after remedial appeals)