Holmes v. Neal

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition challenging his capital murder conviction after granting govt.’s motion to lift stay on consideration of said petition, even though Dist. Ct. had previously found that defendant was not competent to assist his counsel in proceeding on petition. Under Ryan, 133 S.Ct. 696, Dist. Ct. could properly proceed on habeas petition even though defendant was still incompetent, where issues contained in habeas petition were “record-based” claims that were resolvable as matter of law. With respect to merits of his claims, defendant failed to establish any reversible error with respect to prosecutor’s actions during closing arguments at sentencing phase of trial that pertained to showing pictures of victims to jury and accusing defense counsel of crying at every trial, where trial court instructed jury to disregard prosecutor’s actions and where trial court, and not jury, had ultimate sentencing authority. Ct. further rejected defendant’s contention that his trial counsel was ineffective, where record showed that: (1) counsel essentially advanced defendant’s main argument that his co-defendant was instigator of murders; and (2) trial court rejected his argument based on facts indicating defendant had planned murders and tried to cover up his crime. Ct. also noted that defendant retains right to future hearing as to whether he is sufficiently competent to be put to death.