record. When Brown heard that the prosecutor agreed to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea if the sentence exceeded a 14-year “cap,” Brown understandably believed that he would receive a sentence no greater than that unless he went to trial. II. Because the petitioner’s habeas petition was filed after the passage of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (Apr. 24, 1996), the AEDPA applies to his case. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 336, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997). The AEDPA contains the well-known provisions requiring deferential review of state court decisions applying federal constitutional law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(l)-(2); Harrington v. Richter, — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 770, 785-86, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011) (<HOLDING>); Peak v. Webb, 673 F.3d 465, 472 (6th
recognizing that decisions of lower federal courts interpreting federal law are not binding on state courts holding that state courts in construing and interpreting state law are not bound by the decisions of federal courts holding that aedpa limits a federal habeas court to the record before the state court where a claim has been adjudicated on the merits by the state court holding that when presented with petitioners claim based upon state and federal law and the state court confined its analysis  to state law aedpa deference does not apply holding that the aedpa requires federal habeas courts to review state court decisions with deference and latitude and a state courts determination that a claim lacks merit precludes federal habeas relief so long as fairminded jurists could disagree on the correctness of the state courts decision quoting yarborough v alvarado 541 us 652 664 124 sct 2140 158 led2d 938 2004