There was no ineffective assistance of counsel where appointed counsel did not follow the defense strategy by appellant’s chosen counsel. Affirming the district court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition, the appellate court held that sufficient evidence of lewd intent supported the petitioner’s conviction on counts of child molestation. The court held that the trial court’s refusal to appoint the petitioner his counsel of choice on re-sentencing did not violate either his Sixth Amendment or his due process rights. In addition, appointed counsel did not provide ineffective assistance at re-sentencing by failing to investigate and to call witnesses or by failing to object to a sentence increase. Dissenting, Judge Hawkins wrote that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel when appointed counsel did not follow prior counsel’s suggestions regarding investigation of potentially mitigating evidence.