Giddings v. Bobbi Jo

Sep 1, 2026
2:22-cv-02388

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 1st day of September, 2026, after de novo review of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 1, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Pamela A. Carlos, ECF No. 21, and Petitioner‘s Objections thereto, see ECF No. 24, and for the reasons set forth in the Court‘s Opinion issued this date, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

  1. The Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 21, is APPROVED and ADOPTED.1
  2. The Habeas Petition, ECF No. 1, is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part, as follows:
    1. Claim I (originally Habeas “Ground Five,” see Pet. 14, ECF No. 1)2 is DENIED. A certificate of appealability is issued as to this claim.
    2. Claim II (originally Habeas “Ground Two,” see Pet. at 9)3 is DISMISSED as procedurally defaulted. A certificate of appealability is denied as to this claim.
  3. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Joseph F. Leeson, Jr.

JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR.

United States District Judge

Notes

1
The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in part for the reasons stated in the Opinion issued this date.
2
Claim I (originally Habeas “Ground Five“) raises trial counsel‘s alleged ineffectiveness for failing to request or object to the omission of the “in furtherance” jury instruction language for felony-murder in cases involving co-felons.
3
Claim II (originally Habeas “Ground Two“) raises trial counsel‘s ineffectiveness related to the self-defense or defense-of-property instruction.