Matthew Moore v. Joe Schmidt

MEMORANDUM

1. The Alaska Court of Appeals concluded that Moore was not constructively denied counsel. This was not “contrary to, or [ ] an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). Failure to subject a prosecutor’s case to adversarial testing will only constitute constructive denial of counsel when “ ‘counsel entirely fails to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing.’ ” Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 697 , 122 S.Ct. 1843 , 152 L.Ed.2d 914 (2002) (quoting United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 659 , 104 S.Ct. 2039 , 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984)). Moore’s lawyer presented his desired intoxication defense at trial. Additionally, the Supreme Court has never found that a criminal defendant has a right to a meaningful relationship with his attorney. Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 13-14 , 103 S.Ct. 1610 , 75 L.Ed.2d 610 (1983). In any event, the proposition that a serious breakdown in the attorney-client relationship may rise to a constructive denial of counsel is not “clearly established” by Supreme Court precedent.

2. Moore cites no Supreme Court case to support his…