in-chambers opinion on motion to stay mandate Habeas – Stay of Mandate The State’s request to stay the mandate in the court’s grant of relief is denied by Judge Ripple’s in chambers opinion. The standard for granting a stay is set forth in Books v. City of Elkhart, 239 F.3d 826, 828 (7th Cir. 2001)… Read more
4. Standard of review
7th circuit decision, on habeas review of summary orders in 2001AP168 (§ 809.30 appeal) and 2003AP2332 (§ 974.06 appeal) Due to the nature of the issues and length of discussion, this case will be canvassed in multiple posts. Part I (IAC – adequate provocation defense) is here; Part III (evidentiary hearing, GP advice), here. Habeas –… Read more
Docket Decision below (3rd Cir No. 07-2163, 5/28/10) Question Presented (by Scotusblog): For purposes of adjudicating a state prisoner’s petition for federal habeas relief, what is the temporal cutoff for whether a decision from this Court qualifies as “clearly established Federal law” under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty… Read more
Felkner v. Steven Frank Jackson, USSC No. 10-797, 3/31/11 On habeas review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the court of appeals failed to give sufficient deference to the state court determination that the prosecutor had race-neutral reasons for striking 2 of 3 black prospective jurors. The prosecutor struck one juror because she had an MSW, and… Read more
Donald Calloway v. Montgomery, 512 F. 3d 940, No. 07-1148, 1/14/08 Issue/Holding: Where the Supreme Court has expressly declined to rule on the issue (or on one in a very similar) context) to the issue on habeas review, there is no clearly established precedent within the meaning of AEDPA. Andrew Lockhart v. Chandler, 446 F.3d 721… Read more
Allen A. Muth v. Frank, 412 F.3d 808 (7th Cir 2005) Issue/Holding: AEDPA requirement of state court adjudication on merits requires neither “well-articulated or even correct decision”; state court need not offer any reasons, so that summary disposition would satisfy requirement. In short: it “is perhaps best understood by stating what it is not: it is not the… Read more
Larry W. Myartt v. Frank, 7th Cir No 04-2115, 1/21/05Issue/Holding: … AEDPA standards apply only to claims that were “adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). In the instant case, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals did not address Myartt’s ineffective assistance claim, which is unsurprising because Myartt’s pro se filing… Read more
Alphonso Hubanks v. Frank, 392 F. 3d 926 (04-1043, 12/22/04) For Hubanks: Robert J. Dvorak Issue/Holding: Habeas relief is appropriate pursuant to § 2254(d)(1) if the state court identified the right legal principle as determined by the Supreme Court but unreasonably applied that principle to the facts of the case. The standard for proving an… Read more
