(6th Cir.1998) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1)). Petitioner can rebut this presumption only by clear and convincing evidence. Id. The deferential standard articulated by the AEDPA, however, does not apply if the state has failed altogether to review a particular claim. As the Sixth Circuit has indicated, where the state court clearly did not address the merits of a claim, “there are simply no results, let alone reasoning, to which [the] court can defer.” In such circumstances, the court conducts a de novo review. See McKenzie v. Smith, 326 F.3d 721, 727 (6th Cir.2003); see also Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 2542, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003) (reviewing habeas issue de novo where state courts had not reached the question); Maples v. Stegall, 340 F.3d 433, 437 (6th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). ANALYSIS I. Failure to Investigate Claim
recognizing that wiggins established de novo standard of review for any claim that was not addressed by the state courts recognizing abuse of discretion rather than de novo standard of review recognizing de novo standard of review holding that de novo standard of review applies on federal claims never addressed by state courts holding that the appellate standard of review of ineffectiveness claim is de novo