Dist.Ct. did not err in denying portion of defendant's habeas petition, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue defendant's proposed alibi defense to attempted murder charge. Record showed that defendant gave confession to charged offense, and that defendant gave different alibi to trial counsel than one presented in habeas petition. As such, trial counsel could not be deemed ineffective, where: (1) state court could reasonably conclude on disputed evidence that defendant never told counsel of alibi defense at issue in habeas petition; and (2) trial counsel testified that different alibi that defendant gave to him was not corroborated. However, Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendant's portion of habeas claim that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to present argument that there was insufficient evidence to convict because govt. failed to present evidence that his confession was corroborated. Sentencing issue that appellate counsel raised was not so weak so as to be equivalent to filing no brief at all, and defendant failed to present case law to support his corpus delicti argument that govt. was required to present evidence to corroborate details contained in his confession. Moreover, record contained independent evidence that corresponded to confession, and that said evidence lined up with details as to how crime occurred. As such, defendant failed to show that his proposed sufficiency of evidence claim was both obviously and clearly stronger than sentencing issue raised by appellate counsel on direct appeal.
