John Bray v. Jeff Premo

MEMORANDUM

John Michael Bray appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habe-as petition challenging his conviction for two counts of aggravated murder, two counts of murder, and three counts of kidnapping. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2258, and we affirm.

1. Bray argues that the state postconviction court’s denial of his claim that trial counsel were ineffective in investigating a testifying codefendant’s plea agreement was unreasonable. See § 2254(d); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-96 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 318 , 94 S.Ct. 1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974). This argument is without merit. Trial counsel used a transcript from a September 3, 1992 meeting between the prosecution and the codefendant in cross-examining the codefendant about his plea agreement and his understanding of it. The state postconviction court’s conclusion that trial counsel did not perform defi-ciently in not also obtaining a letter from the codefendant’s attorney about his plea agreement did not involve an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law. See § 2254(d)(1).

2. Bray argues that…