≡ Menu

22. Habeas corpus

Questions Presented: This case presents three questions involving· AEDPA (the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996), and Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012), this Court’s recent decision expanding ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims to include rejected plea offers: 1. Whether the Sixth Circuit failed to give appropriate deference to a Michigan state court under… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Questions presented: 1. Whether the Michigan Supreme Court’s recognition that a state statute abolished the long-maligned diminished-capacity defense was an “unexpected and indefensible” change in a common-law doctrine of criminal law under this Court’s retroactivity jurisprudence. See Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U.S. 451 (2001). 2. Whether the Michigan Court of Appeals’ retroactive application of the… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Padilla does not apply retroactively

Chaidez v. United States, USSC No. 11-820, affirming 655 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011) Issue:  We know that Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) requires counsel to advise a defendant about the risk of deportation arising from a guilty plea.  The question presented by Chaidez is whether or not that rule applies retroactively so… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Ryan v. Gonzales, USSC No. 10-930; Tibbals v. Carter, USSC No. 11-218, 1/8/13 United States Supreme Court decision, reversing In re Gonzalez, 623 F.3d 1242 (9th Cir. 2010), and reversing and remanding Carter v. Bradshaw, 644 F.3d 329 (6th Cir. 2011) These two cases present the question whether the incompetence of a state prisoner requires suspension… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Martin Woolley v. Rednour, 7th Cir No. 10-3550, 12/14/12 seventh circuit decision Habeas Review – Issue Left Unaddressed by State Court Where, on state (Illinois) postconviction review of an IAC claim, the trial court ruled that counsel’s performance had been deficient but not prejudicial, and the state appellate court affirmed solely on the basis of… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Robert Dietrich v. Smith, 7th Cir No. 12-1672, 12/4/12 seventh circuit decision, on habeas review, affirming 2011C117 (E.D. Wis 2/23/12); prior history: State v. Dietrich, Wis. App. 2008AP1697-CR After the trial court denied his request for an in camera inspection of the sexual assault victim’s mental health records, State v. Green, 2002 WI 68, ¶34, 253 Wis. 2d… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Elliot D. Ray v. Clements, 7th Cir No. 11-3228, 11/19/12 seventh circuit decision, appeal following remand in 592 F.3d 793 (7th Cir 2010) (summarized in prior post) … (W)e hold that in cases where the pro se prisoner’s post-conviction motion is not received, the petitioner must submit a sworn statement and some evidence to support his claim… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Question Presented (from cert pet): In federal habeas proceedings, undersigned counsel raised for the first time a claim under Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003), that trial counsel were ineffective for failing to investigate the extraordinary mitigating evidence in Mr. Trevino’s life. The federal proceeding was stayed to allow exhaustion, but the Texas Court of… Read more

{ 0 comments }
RSS