Winston Calder v. Richard Comerford, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, a federal court cannot grant habeas relief “with respect to any claim adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim” meets certain strict prerequisites. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (emphasis added). If a “claim” is not adjudicated on its merits in the state court proceedings, however, federal review of the claim is de novo. Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449, 472 (2009). The question presented is: When the deficient performance prong of a claim of ineffective assistance under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 688 (1984), is misconstrued by the state courts and therefore not adjudicated on the merits in the State court proceedings, is the state courts’ determination as to Strickland’s prejudice prong nonetheless entitled to deference under § 2254(d)?