Lorenzo Malone v. James Fortner ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                 NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
    File Name: 14a0186n.06
    No. 13-5473
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
    FILED
    Mar 10, 2014
    LORENZO MALONE,                                        )
    DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
    )
    Petitioner-Appellant,                           )
    )   ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
    v.                                                     )   STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
    )   THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF
    JAMES FORTNER,                                         )   TENNESSEE
    )
    Respondent-Appellee.                            )
    BEFORE: NORRIS, COLE, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM.        Lorenzo Malone appeals the district court’s judgment denying his
    petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
    .
    A jury found Malone guilty of first-degree felony murder, and the trial court sentenced
    him to life in prison. The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court’s
    judgment. State v. Malone, No. M2003-02770-CCA-R3-CD, 
    2005 WL 1521788
     (Tenn. Crim.
    App. June 27, 2005). The Tennessee courts denied Malone’s subsequent petition for post-
    conviction relief.
    Malone filed a § 2254 petition, asserting numerous claims, including that his trial counsel
    rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to improper remarks that were made by the
    prosecutor during closing argument. The district court denied Malone’s petition, concluding,
    among other things, that the ineffective-assistance claim lacked merit, was untimely, and was
    No. 13-5473
    Malone v. Fortner
    procedurally defaulted. The court granted a certificate of appealability for several of Malone’s
    claims, including the ineffective-assistance claim.
    On appeal, Malone argues that that the district court erred by denying him relief on his
    ineffective-assistance claim. The respondent argues that Malone’s ineffective-assistance claim is
    procedurally defaulted.    We need not address respondent’s contention that the claim is
    procedurally defaulted, however, because the claim is more easily resolved on the merits. See
    Mahdi v. Bagley, 
    522 F.3d 631
    , 635 (6th Cir. 2008).
    To prevail on an ineffective-assistance claim, a petitioner must demonstrate deficient
    performance by counsel resulting in prejudice. United States v. Wynn, 
    663 F.3d 847
    , 851 (6th
    Cir. 2011). To establish prejudice, a petitioner must show that there is a reasonable probability
    that, but for counsel’s error, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Sowell v.
    Anderson, 
    663 F.3d 783
    , 795 (6th Cir. 2011).
    Regardless of the standard of review that we employ, see Jackson v. Houk, 
    687 F.3d 723
    ,
    731 (6th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 
    133 S. Ct. 1243
     (2013), Malone cannot demonstrate the
    requisite prejudice, given the overwhelming evidence of his guilt, including his detailed
    confession and the fact that police found the murder weapon and victim’s belongings at his
    residence.
    Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-5473

Judges: Norris, Cole, Gibbons

Filed Date: 3/10/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/1/2024