Panetti v. Quarterman, No. 06-6407
Denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought by a prisoner convicted and sentenced to death in a Texas state court is reversed where: 1) the Supreme Court has statutory authority to adjudicate the claims raised in the habeas application; 2) a state court failed to provide the procedures to which petitioner was entitled under the Constitution; and 3) a federal appellate court employed an improperly restrictive test when it considered petitioner's claim of incompetency on the merits.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Attorney failed to file appeal as instructed
CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, HABEAS CORPUS, SENTENCING
US v. Poindexter, No. 05-7635, 05-7636
Denial of motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. section 2255 is vacated and remanded as an attorney renders constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel if he fails to follow his client's unequivocal instruction to file a timely notice of appeal, even though the defendant may have waived his right to challenge his conviction and sentence in the plea agreement
US v. Poindexter, No. 05-7635, 05-7636
Denial of motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. section 2255 is vacated and remanded as an attorney renders constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel if he fails to follow his client's unequivocal instruction to file a timely notice of appeal, even though the defendant may have waived his right to challenge his conviction and sentence in the plea agreement
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Death Penalty, mental retardation
Simpson v. Norris, No. 06-2823
In a death penalty case, denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is vacated and remanded where the district court erred in holding that petitioner had defaulted an eighth amendment claim under Atkins that his mental retardation made him ineligible for the death penalty. Re
In a death penalty case, denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is vacated and remanded where the district court erred in holding that petitioner had defaulted an eighth amendment claim under Atkins that his mental retardation made him ineligible for the death penalty. Re
Monday, June 25, 2007
habeas winner
US v. Guerrero, No. 05-3299
Dismissal of defendant's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2255 is vacated and remanded where: 1) a timely, amended ineffective assistance claim was included only in an unverified memorandum, and thus failed to comply with the procedural requirements of section 2255 Rule 2(b); but 2) defendant should have an opportunity to conform his motion to Rule 2(b)'s procedural requirements.
Dismissal of defendant's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2255 is vacated and remanded where: 1) a timely, amended ineffective assistance claim was included only in an unverified memorandum, and thus failed to comply with the procedural requirements of section 2255 Rule 2(b); but 2) defendant should have an opportunity to conform his motion to Rule 2(b)'s procedural requirements.
Procedural bar exceptions
Kuenzel v. Allen, No. 06-11986
Denial of habeas petition is vacated and remanded where the district court has not addressed the issue of whether petitioner has satisfied the exceptions to the procedural bar announced in Siebert v. Allen, 455 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2006), and where the district court erred in holding that the intervening authority of Pace v. DiGuigliemo, 125 S. Ct. 1807 (2005), effectively overruled the decision in Siebert
Denial of habeas petition is vacated and remanded where the district court has not addressed the issue of whether petitioner has satisfied the exceptions to the procedural bar announced in Siebert v. Allen, 455 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2006), and where the district court erred in holding that the intervening authority of Pace v. DiGuigliemo, 125 S. Ct. 1807 (2005), effectively overruled the decision in Siebert
amended ineffective assistance claim was included only in an unverified memorandum
US v. Guerrero, No. 05-3299
Dismissal of defendant's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2255 is vacated and remanded where: 1) a timely, amended ineffective assistance claim was included only in an unverified memorandum, and thus failed to comply with the procedural requirements of section 2255 Rule 2(b); but 2) defendant should have an opportunity to conform his motion to Rule 2(b)'s procedural requirements.
Dismissal of defendant's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2255 is vacated and remanded where: 1) a timely, amended ineffective assistance claim was included only in an unverified memorandum, and thus failed to comply with the procedural requirements of section 2255 Rule 2(b); but 2) defendant should have an opportunity to conform his motion to Rule 2(b)'s procedural requirements.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
state court's application of the Strickland standard for a defense counsel's duty
Ramonez v. Berghuis, No. 06-1852
Denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging a conviction for home invasion, assault with intent to do great bodily harm, and aggravated stalking is reversed where a state court's application of the Strickland standard for a defense counsel's duty to investigate was unreasonable in regard to his failure to investigate and call three witnesses to the alleged crime.
Denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging a conviction for home invasion, assault with intent to do great bodily harm, and aggravated stalking is reversed where a state court's application of the Strickland standard for a defense counsel's duty to investigate was unreasonable in regard to his failure to investigate and call three witnesses to the alleged crime.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Pro-se Habeas winner
Ogle v. Johnson, No. 06-11074
Dismissal of federal habeas petition is reversed where a pro se petitioner fairly presents his claim to a state habeas court when he makes a bare allegation of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in his state habeas petition and then describes in briefs and testimony in later proceedings several instances of alleged ineffective assistance
Dismissal of federal habeas petition is reversed where a pro se petitioner fairly presents his claim to a state habeas court when he makes a bare allegation of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in his state habeas petition and then describes in briefs and testimony in later proceedings several instances of alleged ineffective assistance
Friday, June 08, 2007
DNA Winner
In McKithen v. Brown, Judge Calabresi opens his decision as follows:"Eighty-four years ago, Judge Learned Hand observed that '[o]ur procedure has been always haunted by the ghost of the innocent man convicted,' but posited, optimistically, that '[i]t is an unreal dream.' United States v. Garrison, 291 F. 646, 649 (S.D.N.Y. 1923). Today, with the advance of forensic DNA technology, our desire to join Learned Hand's optimism has given way to the reality of wrongful convictions -- a reality which challenges us to reaffirm our commitment to the principle that the innocent should be freed."The case involves an attempt by a prisoner to a post-conviction constitutional right to access to DNA testing, which, he asserts, might exonerate him. The District Court dismissed the action, citing the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, but the Second Circuit reversed. The decision can be found here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)