Hedlund v. Ryan

If an application for writ of habeas corpus is based on a claim or claims that were adjudicated on the merits in state court proceedings it will not be granted, unless the state court decision was contrary to or involved unreasonable application of Federal law or the decision was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.

Petitioner Charles Hedlund appeals the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by the district court. The panel reviewed six claims from Hedlund’s petition: “(1) the use of a leg brace as a security measure during trial; (2) the use of dual juries [one for Hedlund and another for the co-defendant]; (3) juror bias; (4) counsel’s performance during the plea process; (5) whether all mitigating evidence was considered under Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978), Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982), and their progeny; and (6) counsel’s performance during the penalty phase.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) states that an application for a writ of habeas corpus will not be granted if the claims it is presented under were adjudicated on the merits in state court proceedings. However, if the state court proceeding resulted in a decision that was contrary to or involved unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law, or a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts, the application for writ of habeas corpus may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) & (2). Because each of Hedlund’s six claims did not meet this statutory rule, and because none of the exceptions applied, the panel held that Hedlund had not raised a viable claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. AFFIRMED.