ROBERTSON v. AGBAOSI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
DAVID BRYAN ROBERTSON, 	)
)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:25-CV-50 (MTT)
)
Warden MARK AGBOASI, 	)
)
)
Respondent. 	)
)
ORDER
United States Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle recommends that David
Robertson’s habeas petitions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be denied. ECF 11.
Robertson has objected, so pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court reviews the
Recommendation de novo.
Robertson raises two objections. First, he argues that the state habeas court
concluded that Robertson satisfied both prongs of the ineffective assistance of counsel
test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). ECF 12 at 4-5. It
appears that Robertson misunderstands the state habeas court’s analysis. He
maintains, “the habeas court’s determination in stating ‘the Court is convinced that
[appellate counsel] rendered ineffective assistance’ ascertains the Petitioner has
satisfied both principles implemented in the Strickland v. Washington standard of
review: (1) deficient performance and (2) prejudice.” Id. But as the Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-00050-MTT-CHW Document 14 Filed 01/07/26 Page 1 of 2

-2-
explained, “[t]he state habeas court found that Petitioner satisfied the first Strickland
prong but that he had failed to demonstrate prejudice.” ECF 11 at 5.
Second, Robertson argues that he should be granted a certificate of appealability
because “there are two (2) standards of review applying to the ground for relief in his
petition: (1) the demonstration of prejudice standard as implemented in Strickland v.
Washington … [and] (2) the presumption of prejudice standard as implemented in
United States v. Chronic, 466 U.S. 648, 659 (1984).” ECF 12 at 7-8. Roberston also
filed a motion for a certificate of appealability. ECF 13. The Magistrate Judge concluded
that Robertson “has not developed specific grounds for showing how [appellate
counsel’s] deficient performance amounted to ‘constructive’ abandonment or otherwise
resulted in any change to the outcome of his criminal proceedings,” and thus the
Chronic standard does not apply. ECF 11 at 9-10. Robertson does not attempt to make
this showing in either his objection or motion, and the Court agrees with the Magistrate
Judge that Chronic’s presumption of prejudice is inapplicable here.
After review, the Court accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. The Recommendation (ECF 11) is
ADOPTED and made the Order of the Court. Accordingly, Robertson’s Section 2254
petitions (ECF 1, 6, 8) are DENIED. A certificate of appealability and Robertson’s
motion for a certificate of appealability (ECF 13) are DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 7th day of January, 2026.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 1:25-cv-00050-MTT-CHW Document 14 Filed 01/07/26 Page 2 of 2