Showing posts with label Ineffective Assistance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ineffective Assistance. Show all posts
Fourth Circuit: In re: John McFadden
Habeas/AEDPA
Newly discovered evidence that deft lost out on a favorable plea offer is not grounds for a second/successive petition.
In re: John McFadden
Ninth Circuit: YUN LIAO V. MAURICE JUNIOUS
Habeas, Ineffective Assistance
Habeas for ineffective assistance based on defense counsel's acceptance of late-night, telephoned denial of permission for medical study, information that later proved to be incorrect. State habeas finding of lack of prejudice objectively unreasonable given centrality of issue.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/29/14-55897.pdf
Habeas for ineffective assistance based on defense counsel's acceptance of late-night, telephoned denial of permission for medical study, information that later proved to be incorrect. State habeas finding of lack of prejudice objectively unreasonable given centrality of issue.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/29/14-55897.pdf
Eleventh Circuit: Johnny Overstreet, Jr. v. Warden
Ineffective assistance
Habeas for ineffective assistance on direct appeal that characterized an issue certain to require reversal as a substantial evidence challenge.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201314995.pdf
Habeas for ineffective assistance on direct appeal that characterized an issue certain to require reversal as a substantial evidence challenge.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201314995.pdf
Eighth Circuit: James Clifford Slick Basham v. United States
Habeas, Fourth Amendment, (Plea process)
Allegedly favorable plea deal is not a bar to finding prejudice under Strickland in later collateral challenge.
No ineffective assistance Habeas for not challenging the cell phone search two years before Riley.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/151980P.pdf
Allegedly favorable plea deal is not a bar to finding prejudice under Strickland in later collateral challenge.
No ineffective assistance Habeas for not challenging the cell phone search two years before Riley.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/151980P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: Nicole Walker v. United States
Habeas, retroactive application
Plain error not relevant to collateral attack of conviction.
Case extending Apprendi to mandatory minimums isn't retroactive to cases on collateral appeal, because Apprendi itself isn't retroactive.
No constitutional error in lack of assistance of counsel during Certiorari. No statutory error, as the omission of the issue from the petition wouldn't have been ineffective assistance.
Inaccurate guess by deft counsel as to likely sentence did not make plea involuntary.
No error in safety valve counsel at trial and during appeal, denial of evidentiary hearing upheld.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143700P.pdf
Plain error not relevant to collateral attack of conviction.
Case extending Apprendi to mandatory minimums isn't retroactive to cases on collateral appeal, because Apprendi itself isn't retroactive.
No constitutional error in lack of assistance of counsel during Certiorari. No statutory error, as the omission of the issue from the petition wouldn't have been ineffective assistance.
Inaccurate guess by deft counsel as to likely sentence did not make plea involuntary.
No error in safety valve counsel at trial and during appeal, denial of evidentiary hearing upheld.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143700P.pdf
Eleventh Circuit: Domineque Ray v. Alabama, DOC, et al.
Ineffective Assistance
Cursory mitigation investigation insufficiently outcome-determinative under Strickland to justify the Writ.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201315673.pdf
Cursory mitigation investigation insufficiently outcome-determinative under Strickland to justify the Writ.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201315673.pdf
Tenth Circuit: United States v. Webster
4A/ Ineffective Assistance
No ineffective assistance Habeas, as the theft of personalty from the deft's house during the search did not justify a blanket suppression of the fruits of the search.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/15/15-3027.pdf
No ineffective assistance Habeas, as the theft of personalty from the deft's house during the search did not justify a blanket suppression of the fruits of the search.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/15/15-3027.pdf
First Circuit: Bucci v. US (12/21)
Habeas for ineffective assistance denied.
Deft asked counsel to negotiate plea, counsel told deft that he did, but didn't in fact negotiate, as he thought it would be futile.
District court denial of second/successive construed as application to Circuit to file.
This is the third petition, second was construed as joint habeas/60(b), dismissed as to both.
Third cannot be construed as first in time due to unavailability of evidence for claim in the earlier petition -- congressional intent, among other things.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/13-2418P-01A.pdf
Deft asked counsel to negotiate plea, counsel told deft that he did, but didn't in fact negotiate, as he thought it would be futile.
District court denial of second/successive construed as application to Circuit to file.
This is the third petition, second was construed as joint habeas/60(b), dismissed as to both.
Third cannot be construed as first in time due to unavailability of evidence for claim in the earlier petition -- congressional intent, among other things.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/13-2418P-01A.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)