Ernest Vaden v. D. Runnels

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner-Appellant Ernest Lee Vaden (Vaden) challenges the district court’s denial of his federal habeas petition. Vaden asserted a claim based on ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Additionally, Vaden raised an uncertified issue concerning the trial judge’s failure to appoint substitute counsel to present Vaden’s claim that his trial counsel was ineffective.

1. We agree with the district court that the state court did not unreasonably apply Strickland . “[A] defendant claiming ineffective counsel must show that counsel’s actions were not supported by a reasonable strategy and that the error was prejudicial.” Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 505 , 123 S.Ct. 1690 , 155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003). The state court did not unreasonably apply Strickland , because as it observed, the medical records were not especially probative regarding Vaden’s intoxication defense. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 .

2. The district court was correct in denying habeas relief for Vaden’s claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to call an expert witness to support his claim of…