Raymond Bolt v. Mark Nooth

MEMORANDUM

Appellant Raymond Onward Bolt appeals the district court’s dismissal of his application for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . Bolt claims that his Sixth-Amendment right to effective' assistance of counsel was violated when his attorney allowed him to plead guilty on the afternoon before trial without insisting that Bolt undergo a mental capacity examination that had been ordered that morning.

In order to succeed on his ineffective-assistance claim, Bolt must establish that the state post-conviction review court, which rejected Bolt’s ineffective-assistance claim, unreasonably concluded: (1) that his attorney’s actions did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) that any deficient performance did not result in prejudice. Harrington v. Richter 562 U.S. 86, 104-05 , 131 S.Ct. 770 , 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011) (discussing the analysis that federal courts must apply to an ineffective-assistance claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d) when the claim has been adjudicated on the merits in state court); see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). We.conclude that Bolt has not demonstrated that the…