Nancy Louise Abernathy v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN JOAN YUKINS, Warden, DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 04a0126n.06
Filed: November 24, 2004
Case No. 02-2091
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
NANCY LOUISE ABERNATHY, )
)
Petitioner-Appellant, )
) ON APPEAL FROM THE
v. ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT
) COURT FOR THE WESTERN
JOAN YUKINS, Warden, ) DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
)
Respondent-Appellee. )
)
__________________________________________
BEFORE: SUHRHEINRICH, BATCHELDER, and COLE, Circuit Judges.
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Nancy Louise Abernathy (“Abernathy”)
appeals the district court’s denial of her petition for habeas review. Specifically, Abernathy alleges
that the district court unreasonably applied Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052
(1984), in finding that her trial attorney was not constitutionally ineffective for asserting
simultaneous defenses of innocence and insanity to the charge that she murdered her daughter-in-
law. Additionally, Abernathy argues that because the district court denied Abernathy’s request to
hold an evidentiary hearing, the record is insufficient for this Court to determine whether the district
court unreasonably applied Strickland.
A court may decide an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on a trial record “when the
record is adequate to assess the merits of the defendant’s allegations.” United States v. Hill, 142 F.
3d 305, 308 (6th Cir. 1998). We find that the district court did not err in ruling on the habeas

-- 1 of 2 --

2
petition without holding an evidentiary hearing because the record was sufficiently developed, as
reflected in the district court’s opinion. After carefully reviewing the record, the applicable law, the
parties’ briefs, and counsels’ arguments, we are convinced that the district court did not err in its
conclusions. As the district court’s opinion, which incorporates the Magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation, carefully and correctly sets out the law governing the issues raised, and clearly
articulates the reasons underlying its decision, issuance of a full written opinion by this court would
serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion, we
AFFIRM.

-- 2 of 2 --