546US1
Unit: $$U9
[08-22-08 14:08:29] PAGES PGT: OPIN
Cite as: 546 U. S. 74 (2005)
75
Per Curiam
ter Cynthia died in the fire. At trial, the State presented evidence of respondent’s intent to kill his ex-girlfriend and her boyfriend, but not of specific intent to kill Cynthia Col lins. The State also offered expert forensic evidence to show that the fire had been started deliberately. Respond ent did not contest this forensic evidence at trial because his retained arson expert had reported that the State’s evidence conclusively established arson. Respondent was convicted of aggravated felony murder on a theory of transferred in tent and sentenced to death. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal, where he was represented by new counsel. Respondent sought postconviction relief in state court. The state trial court denied his request for an evidentiary hearing and denied relief on all claims, and the state appel late court affirmed. Respondent then sought federal habeas relief. The District Court permitted discovery on certain issues, but ultimately denied all of respondent’s claims. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that respondent was entitled to habeas relief on two alternative grounds. First, that transferred intent was not a permissible theory for aggra vated felony murder under Ohio law, and that the evidence of direct intent was constitutionally insufficient to support conviction. Second, that the performance of respondent’s trial counsel had been constitutionally deficient under Strick land v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984), in his retaining and mishandling of his arson expert and in his inadequate treatment of the State’s expert testimony. We now grant the State’s petition for writ of certiorari and vacate the judgment below. I The Sixth Circuit erred in holding that the doctrine of transferred intent was inapplicable to aggravated felony murder for the version of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2903.01(B) (Anderson 1982) under which respondent was convicted.
