Mann v. Ryan, No. 09-99017 [July 15, 2016]
After hearing the case en
banc the Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Mann’s petition finding
no ineffective assistance at the guilt-phase or at sentencing. The Court was
presented with the question: When, in the absence of clarity, can this court
conclude that a state court has applied the wrong standard to review a Strickland claim raised in a petition
for post-conviction relief? The Court held that it must approach this question
with the deference AEDPA requires and grant habeas relief only if no fairminded
jurist could conclude that the adjudication was consistent with clearly
established Supreme Court precedent and that here fairminded jurist could
conclude that the state court’s review of Mann’s claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel comported with Strickland.
Therefore, applying AEDPA deference to his claims the Court found the denial of
his claim was not contrary to, or and unreasonable application of, federal law.