Hartsfield v. Dorethy

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition challenging his murder and home invasion convictions on ground that his trial counsel improperly usurped his personal right to testify at trial. Ineffective assistance of counsel claim under Strickland is appropriate vehicle in which to establish that trial counsel violated defendant’s right to testify, as opposed to harmless-beyond-a-reasonable doubt standard under Chapman, 386 U.S. 18, where defendant has alleged that his counsel, as opposed to trial judge, has usurped said right. Moreover, state court could properly find that defendant failed to establish viable right-to-testify claim under Strickland, where: (1) defendant did not assert at trial any denial of his right to testify; and (2) defendant failed to establish any prejudice where proposed alibi testimony was weak. Ct. further noted that there is no Supreme Ct. precedent regarding whether defendant must assert denial of right to testify at trial to establish viable right-to testify claim, and thus state court did not unreasonably find that, because defendant did not assert said denial at trial, defendant did not meet his burden of showing that his attorney in fact prohibited his testimony.