Lankford v. Cain

To receive relief, trial counsel’s failure to investigate must result in more than a mere possibility that the proceeding would have ended in a different result.

                Petitioner sought post-conviction relief on the grounds that his trial counsel did not have blood samples taken to be tested for diazepam and failing to object to him being shackled during the trial. Petitioner’s defense in the underlying trial focused on showing lack of intent to kill his partner based on his level of intoxication. The post-conviction court denied relief saying that while trial counsel was deficient for not obtaining a blood test, that did not prejudice Petitioner. To receive relief, trial counsel’s failure to investigate must result in more than a mere possibility that the proceeding would have ended in a different result. The blood test would not have changed the outcome because, as the trial court found, Petitioner was not too intoxicated as to render his waiver of his Miranda rights invalid. The jury was informed that petitioner may have taken diazepam and the prosecutor acknowledged that during closing, the jury also already knew Petitioner has a high BAC during the trial which affected his judgment. Petitioner also failed to present evidence that the shackles placed on him during trial were visible to the jury. AFFIRMED.