Van Hook v. Bobby, 661 F.3d 264

Van Hook challenged his Ohio death sentence in federal habeas after a three-judge panel sentenced him for the murder during a homosexual encounter.
State courts upheld the death sentence and denied post-conviction relief; the AEDPA did not apply given the procedural posture at the time.
The panel previously held trial counsel was ineffective in penalty phase; en banc and Supreme Court interactions led to a remand and reevaluation.
Supreme Court reversed on the panel’s reliance on defense guidelines and certain evidentiary bases but remanded for reconsideration consistent with the ruling.
Van Hook asserts three claims: Brady v. Maryland withholding of exculpatory material, ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
The district court denied relief and this court affirms, addressing Brady and procedural-default aspects of appellate counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Brady claim adequacy	Van Hook argues exculpatory Lippert profile and Schmidtgoessling addendum were withheld.	State argues materiality would not have altered the verdict or sentencing.	Brady claim denied; materials not material to undermining confidence in the verdict.
Ineffective assistance of trial counsel—two grounds	Counsel failed to obtain independent mental health expert and relied on a presentence report.	Sixth Circuit en banc and Supreme Court foreclosed these grounds as basis for relief.	Claim foreclosed; no habeas relief based on these grounds.
Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel	Appellate counsel should have raised two grounds on direct appeal—victim-impact evidence and prosecutorial misconduct.	State defaulted the claim under Ohio procedural rules; no cause to excuse default.	Procedural default bars relief; no excusal shown.

Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (materiality in Brady analysis)
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) (counsel interrogation rights during custodial interrogation)
State v. Murnahan, 63 Ohio St.3d 60 (1992) (claims of ineffective assistance must be raised in applications for reconsideration)
State v. Rone, 1983 WL 8877 (Ohio App. 1983) (timeliness and procedural default for appellate counsel claims)
Coleman v. Mitchell, 244 F.3d 533 (6th Cir. 2001) (procedural default analysis for appellate-counsel claims)
Poindexter v. Mitchell, 454 F.3d 564 (6th Cir. 2006) (adequacy of state grounds for procedural default)
Hicks v. Collins, 384 F.3d 204 (6th Cir. 2004) (state-ground procedural bars; cause and prejudice analysis)
Franklin v. Anderson, 434 F.3d 412 (6th Cir. 2006) (additional discussion of procedural default standards)
Van Hook v. Anderson, 560 F.3d 523 (6th Cir. 2009) (ineffective assistance standard narrowed on remand; en banc reversal)
Bobby v. Van Hook, 130 S. Ct. 13 (2009) (Supreme Court reversal on standard for defense counsel effectiveness)