Janosky v. St. Amand

Filing 920100203

Opinion

Download PDF
var gAgent = navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase() var gWindows = ( (gAgent.indexOf( "win" ) != -1 ) || ( gAgent.indexOf( "16bit" ) != -1 ) ) var gIE = ( gAgent.indexOf( "msie" ) != -1 ) var bInlineFloats = ( gWindows && gIE && ( parseInt( navigator.appVersion ) >= 4 ) ) var floatwnd = 0 var WPFootnote1 = ' At that point, and throughout the ensuing state and federal\ proceedings (up to and including the instant appeal), the\ petitioner\'s trial counsel no longer represented him.\ ' var WPFootnote2 = ' The scrap of paper, seized from Pedoto\'s car, was admitted\ independent of the testimony.\ ' var WPFootnote3 = ' The MAC also concluded that the petitioner was not\ prejudiced by counsel\'s decision to elicit the hearsay testimony. \ In so holding, it rejected the petitioner\'s argument that his\ codefendant\'s acquittal added weight to his claim of\ ineffectiveness. As the MAC recognized, there were several\ features of the case against the codefendant that distinguished it\ from the case against the petitioner (e.g., the merchant did not\ observe Bova as closely, did not converse with him, gave a flawed\ description of him immediately following the robbery, and his\ identification of Bova was not corroborated by other evidence). \ Nevertheless, we need not probe these differences too deeply. \ After all, the MAC\'s supportable finding that counsel\'s performance\ was not constitutionally deficient avoids any need to reach the\ issue of prejudice. See, e.g., Pondexter v. Quarterman, 537 F.3d\ 511, 521 (5th Cir. 2008) (addressing only one prong of the two-pronged inquiry, and stopping there).\ ' var WPFootnote4 = ' In Clements, 485 F.3d at 164-65, we left open the question\ of whether the Supreme Court\'s decision in Baldwin, 541 U.S. at 31-32, abrogated Barresi\'s "background" approach. We take the same\ prudential stance here.\ ' function WPShow( WPid, WPtext ) { if( bInlineFloats ) eval( "document.all." + WPid + ".style.visibility = 'visible'" ); else { if( floatwnd == 0 || floatwnd.closed ) floatwnd = window.open( "", "comment", "toolbars=0,width=600,height=200,resizable=1,scrollbars=1,dependent=1" ); floatwnd.document.open( "text/html", "replace" ); floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" ); floatwnd.document.write( " p { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:1px; } \r\n" ); floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" ); floatwnd.document.write( WPtext ); floatwnd.document.write( 'Close'); floatwnd.document.write( "

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?