≡ Menu

22. Habeas corpus

McQuiggin v. Floyd Perkins, USSC No. 12-126, 5/28/13 United States Supreme Court decision, vacating and remanding Perkins v. McQuiggin, 670 F.3d 665 (6th Cir. 2012) In Schlup v. Delo, 513 U. S. 298 (1995), and House v. Bell, 547 U. S. 518 (2006), the Court held that a convincing showing of “actual innocence” enabled habeas… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Carlos Trevino v. Thaler, USSC No. 11-10189, 5/28/13 United States Supreme Court decision, vacating and remanding 449 Fed. Appx. 145 (5th Cir. Nov. 14, 2011) Last term in Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012), a case arising out of Arizona, the Court held that where a state’s rules of appellate procedure allowed a state… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Linda Metrish, Warden v. Burt Lancaster, USSC 12-547, 5/20/13 United States Supreme Court decision, reversing Lancaster v. Metrish, 683 F.3d 740 (6th Cir. 2012) In a unanimous opinion issued only a month after oral argument, the Supreme Court holds that a state prisoner is not entitled to federal habeas relief based on the retroactive application… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Johnson v. Williams, USSC No. 11-465, 2/20/13 United States Supreme Court decision, reversing and remanding Williams v. Cavazos, 646 F.3d 626 (9th Cir. 2011) When a defendant convicted in state court raises a federal claim and a state court rules against the defendant in an opinion that addresses some issues but does not expressly address… Read more

{ 0 comments }

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 }
RSS