Leroy McGill v. David Shinn

facts, the panel reviewed the merits of McGill’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim under AEDPA’s deferential standard of review. Applying that standard, the panel concluded that McGill did not show that counsel performed deficiently under Strickland at the penalty phase. The panel wrote that the PCR court reasonably concluded that counsel’s preparation, investigation, and presentation of mitigation evidence was thorough and reasoned; that as a whole, the defense team uncovered a “not insignificant” amount of mitigation evidence that spanned decades of McGill’s life and presented a comprehensive picture to the jury; that there is no evidence that counsel failed to uncover any reasonably available mitigation records; and that the PCR court’s findings regarding the adequacy of counsel’s presentation of the circumstances surrounding McGill’s prior armed robbery convictions are not unreasonable. Because counsel’s performance was not objectively deficient in light of the prevailing professional norms, the panel did not reach McGill’s claims of prejudice.

The panel treated McGill’s briefing of two uncertified issues as an application for a COA. The panel denied a COA as to…