United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
PATRICK A. WADE
STATE OF LOUISIANA, Section
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MICHAEL B. NORTH, Magistrate Judge.
This matter was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge to conduct a hearing, including an evidentiary hearing, if necessary, and to submit proposed findings and recommendations for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and (C), and as applicable, Rule 8(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Upon review of the entire record, the Court has determined that this matter can be disposed of without an evidentiary hearing. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). For the following reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the petition for habeas corpus relief be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
I. Procedural history
Petitioner, Patrick Wade, is a convicted prisoner incarcerated in the Louisiana State Penitentiary, in Angola, Louisiana. Wade was charged by bill of information with armed robbery in violation of Louisiana Revised Statute 14:64. On May 12, 2010, he was found guilty as charged. He was sentenced on June 17, 2010 to ninety-nine years imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of probation, parole or suspension of sentence. Thereafter, the State filed a multiple offender bill of information, alleging that Wade was a fourth felony offender under Louisiana Revised Statute 15:529.1. Following a hearing on August 9, 2010, the trial court found Wade to be a fourth felony offender, vacated the original sentence, and imposed a sentence of life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence.
On direct appeal, Wade raised three assignments of error:
(1) The evidence presented by the State was insufficient to convict him of armed robbery;
(2) His sentence of life imprisonment was excessive; and
(3) The trial court erred in charging the jury that a less than unanimous verdict was sufficient to convict him of armed robbery.
The Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction and sentence on August 30, 2011. Wade did not seek further review on direct appeal in the Louisiana Supreme Court.
On August 2, 2012, Wade submitted a pro se application for post-conviction relief to the state district court. In his application, he claimed that cumulative errors by defense counsel denied him effective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment. He asserted six claims in particular:
(1) Trial counsel was ineffective when he failed to investigate and challenge the State's use of Petitioner's alleged confession that was obtained through force and threats;
(2) Trial counsel was ineffective when he failed to conduct any investigation in obtaining video surveillance;
(3) Trial counsel was ineffective when he failed to investigate and obtain a copy of the alleged victim's medical records;
(4) Trial counsel was ineffective by being inadequately prepared for trial;
(5) Trial counsel was ineffective when he failed to obtain transcripts from prior court proceedings held prior to enrollment as counsel in order to adequately prepare for trial; and
(6) Trial counsel was ineffective due to his failure to possess the requisite experience during jury selection.
On September 13, 2012, Wade filed a motion to appoint counsel and a supplemental application for post-conviction ...