Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Petitioner,
LINDA METRISH
Respondent
Now comes the Petitioner, James Alford Wingfield, by and through his attorney, Victor
L. Bland, and pursuant to W.D. Mich LCiv R 72.39(b) states for his appeal as follows:
“The state court’s decision was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable
application of, clearly established Federal law as determined by the Supreme
Court; nor was the decision based on an unreasonable determination of the
facts in light of the evidence presented. 28 U.S.C. Sec 2254. Accordingly,
petitioner is not entitled to relief on this claim.”
2) The Magistrate Judge found that the Petitioner had satisfied the first prong set
forth in Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 99 S. Ct. 664, 58 L.Ed. 2d 579
(1979).
3) However, Petitioner believes he has carried his burden as to the second prongs
of Duren, supra..
Issue Two: Is Petitioner entitled to resentencing where the imposed sentence was
violative of the rule of proportionality?
Issue Three: Is petitioner entitled to a new trial where he was denied effective assistance
of counsel at trial?
“Based on this record, there is no basis to find that counsel was deficient solely
because he was unable to secure a private investigator prior to the June 9, 2003
motion hearing”
4) The trial was set to commence on June 17, 2003, eight days later.
6) Counsel still had not secured the services of an investigator some eight days
before trial.
7) The investigator may have been able to find other witnesses or may have been
otherwise able to aid counsel in preparation of materials to cross examine the
prosecution witnesses.
8) In any event, whatever assistance the investigator could have provided can
never be ascertained since at least three weeks of work time was forever lost.
9) Counsel was ineffective because of this lost time, and the petition should be
granted as a result.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________
Victor L. Bland
Attorney for Petitioner