Opinion
No. 3:01cv0815 AS
July 10, 2002
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On November 19, 2001, pro se petitioner, Kenneth Wolfe, an inmate at the Indiana State Prison (ISP) in Michigan City, Indiana, filed a petition seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Response filed on behalf of the respondent by the Attorney General of Indiana on March 29, 2002, demonstrates the necessary compliance with Lewis v. Faulkner, 689 F.2d 100 (7th Cir. 1982). The petitioner filed a Traverse on July 8, 2002, which this Court has carefully examined. In fact, it is quite lawyer-like and in good form, and this Court greatly appreciates that.
The petitioner is a convicted felon serving a sentence imposed by the Marion Superior Court, Criminal Division, Indianapolis, Indiana. He was convicted of five counts of attempted murder, and on direct appeal, the Supreme Court of Indiana unanimously affirmed the convictions. The sentences are reported in 562 N.E.2d 414 (Ind. 1990). Later, in an unpublished memorandum decision entered May 21, 2001, authored by Judge Baker of the Court of Appeals of Indiana and concurred in by Judges Bailey and Mathias, which is worthy of our consideration here as Appendix "A" and incorporated herein, (end of sentence). Thus, post-conviction relief was sought and denied in an extensive opinion by Judge Baker which is now before this Court. Transfer was denied on Appendix "A" on August 9, 2001 by the Supreme Court of Indiana.
Certainly, the facts found by the highest court in the State of Indiana and by the Court of Appeals of Indiana are entitled to a presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). These two opinions facially indicate the extensive consideration that was given by the two highest courts in Indiana to the issues presented by this petitioner. The burdens here are serious ones under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). See also Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000).
This petitioner is very hard pressed to show that either the Supreme Court of Indiana or the Court of Appeals of Indiana got it wrong with regard to a reasonable application of controlling United States Supreme Court precedent. Specifically, the courts got it correct as far as the Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
Therefore, there is no basis for relief shown here under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Such is now DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.