A lawyer does not provide ineffective assistance of counsel by opting not to bring a losing claim. Smith v. Warden, No. 20-3472/3496, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 5654, at *9 (6th Cir. Mar. 1, 2022).
Although the Court finds no Eighth Circuit case on point, the Seventh, Sixth, and Third Circuits have held that when a state court addresses a state prisoner's federal claim in the process of resolving another claim or issue, the federal claim is deemed adjudicated on the merits for purposes of § 2254(d). See Smith v. Warden, Toledo Correctional Institution, No. 20-3472, 2022 WL 601860, at *4 (6th Cir. March 1, 2022) (“Nothing requires a state court to conduct its analysis under the heading of a specific federal constitutional right to adjudicate it on the merits.”); Bennett v. Brewer, 940 F.3d 279, 290-91 (6th Cir. 2019) (holding that state court's rejection of ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim for lack of prejudice also served as a merits decision for an ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim as to same underlying error); Sturgeon v. Chandler, 552 F.3d 604, 612 (7th Cir. 2009) (holding that state court's evaluation of competency hearing in context of ineffective assistance claim effectively reached merits of related due process claim based on lack of competency hearing); Albrecht v. Horn, 485 F.3d 103, 116 (3d Cir. 2007) (holding that evaluation of constitutionality of sentencing instructions in the context of an ineffective assistance claim amounted to an adjudication on the merits of stand-alone claim on same issue under § 2254(d)).
While there is no Eighth Circuit case specifically addressing the issue, the Seventh, Sixth, and Third Circuits have held that when a state court addresses a state prisoner's federal claim in the process of resolving another claim or issue, the federal claim is deemed adjudicated on the merits for purposes of § 2254(d). See Smith v. Warden, Toledo Correctional Institution, No. 203472, 2022 WL 601860, at *4 (6th Cir. March 1, 2022) (“Nothing requires a state court to conduct its analysis under the heading of a specific federal constitutional right to adjudicate it on the merits.”); Bennett v. Brewer, 940 F.3d 279, 290-91 (6th Cir. 2019) (holding that state court's rejection of ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim for lack of prejudice also served as a merits decision for an ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim as to same underlying error); Sturgeon v. Chandler, 552 F.3d 604, 612 (7th Cir. 2009) (holding that state court's evaluation of competency hearing in context of ineffective assistance claim effectively reached merits of related due process claim based on lack of competency hearing); Albrecht v. Horn, 485 F.3d 103, 116 (3d Cir. 2007) (holding that evaluation of constitutionality of sentencing instructions in the context of an ineffective assistance claim amounted to an adjudication on the merits of stand-alone claim on same issue under § 2254(d)).
This habeas corpus case is before the Court on remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Smith v. Warden, Case Nos. 20-3472, 20-3496, 2022 WL 601860 (6th Cir. Mar. 1, 2022)(unpublished; copy at ECF No. 171)(“Smith II”)(Sutton, C.J., with Siler & Readler).
The trial court denied the motion, concluding that no Brady violation occurred and that the DNA notes were not material.See, e.g., Smith v. Warden, Toledo Corr. Inst., No. 20-3472, 2022 WL 601860, at *3 (6th Cir. Mar. 1, 2022). Id. at *1.
Smith v. Warden, Toledo Corr. Inst., No. 20-3472, 2022 WL 601860, at *4 (6th Cir. Mar. 1, 2022)
Consequently, although the version of the adjournment claim before the COA was couched in terms of an abuse of discretion, rather than a denial of due process, the Court agrees with the parties that it was also adjudicated on the merits. See Smith v. Warden, No. 203472/3496, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 5654, at *10 (6th Cir. Mar. 1, 2022) (“Nothing requires a state court to conduct its analysis under the heading of a specific federal constitutional right to adjudicate it on the merits.