CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, HABEAS CORPUS, SENTENCING

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, HABEAS CORPUS, SENTENCING
Kindler v. Horn, No. 03-9010, 03-9011
In a capital-murder case, petition for a writ of habeas corpus is granted where: 1) the time period for filing the petition was tolled during state-court proceedings, and the federal petition was therefore timely; 2) the state fugitive-forfeiture rule did not apply to procedurally default the petition; 3) the jury instructions and verdict sheet that were used during the penalty phase of petitioner's trial denied him due process of law pursuant to Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (1988); and 4) petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase.

reversing four of eight counts in an indictment,

Willette v. Fischer, No. 06-1422
Grant of habeas petition, reversing four of eight counts in an indictment, is remanded for entry of a modified judgment that vacates only three counts, where punishments for those counts was unconstitutionally imposed.

there is a clearly established federal due process protection against a trial court's reliance on materially false information at sentencing;

Stewart v. Erwin, No. 05-4635
Denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a sexual battery case is reversed and remanded to supplement the record or grant the writ as: 1) although there is no clearly established federal constitutional right to full disclosure of all information used by a trial judge in determining a defendant's sentence; 2) there is a clearly established federal due process protection against a trial court's reliance on materially false information at sentencing; and 3) it was not possible to ascertain whether such a violation might have occurred here, where a portion of the materials used in determining the sentence have been withheld from federal court review, and where the limited record suggested a reasonable possibility that at least some of the sentencing information might have been errone

Rare Confrontation Clause Winner

Vasquez v. Jones, No. 04-2274
Denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is reversed and remanded with instructions to grant the petition where: 1) petitioner established that the state court violated his Confrontation Clause right to impeach a witness' credibility with his criminal record; 2) the state court's resolution of this claim represents an unreasonable application of Supreme Court Confrontation Clause jurisprudence; and 3) the error was not harmless under the Brecht standard

Rule 60 (b) is not a habeas petition

Zakrzewski v. McDonough, No. 06-12804
Denial of motion seeking post-judgment relief under rule 60(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., where motion was made on the ground that former habeas counsel perpetrated a fraud on the court, is vacated as petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion was not a second or successive habeas petition as construed by the district court

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, HABEAS CORPUS, HEALTH LAW, SENTENCING

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, HABEAS CORPUS

Howard v. US Bureau of Prisons, No. 06-3315
In an inmate's pro se habeas corpus proceedings claiming that, during two disciplinary proceedings against him for assaulting another prisoner and possessing drug paraphernalia, federal penitentiary officials violated his due process rights, dismissal of the habeas petition is affirmed in part, but vacated in part where petitioner was denied the opportunity to present potentially exculpatory evidence at one of his hearings

George martorano

McKeever v. Warden Sci-Graterford, No. 05-2492
Grant and stay of a habeas petition challenging a conviction for drug-related charges, which included two counts arising under the Pennsylvania Corrupt Organizations Act (PACOA), is affirmed where: 1) because the PACOA charges, which defendant was actually innocent of, were not an essential part of an agreed exchange, rescission of his plea was not necessary; and 2) thus, the district court did not err in granting the writ of habeas corpus and leaving the remedy to the commonwealth.

habeas corpus winner

Nara v. Frank, No. 05-4779
Plain error review is appropriate where a party fails to timely object to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation (R&R) in habeas corpus cases. Grant of a petition for habeas relief in a murder case is affirmed where: 1) plain error review applied; 2) petitioner properly exhausted his incompetency claim; 3) the district court correctly found that the commonwealth failed to show petitioner defaulted his claim; and 4) there was no plain error in a finding that petitioner was incompetent when he pleaded guilty to murdering his wife and mother-in-law.

A motion for leave to file a successive federal habeas application in a death penalty case is granted

In re Mathis, No. 06-20806
A motion for leave to file a successive federal habeas application in a death penalty case is granted where movant made a prima facie showing of mental retardation for purposes of his Atkins claim.

writ of habeas corpus is granted where:

Fleming v. Evans, No. 06-6110

Sufficiently egregious misconduct on the part of a habeas petitioner's counsel may justify equitable tolling of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) limitations period. In a domestic abuse, assault, and battery case, an application for a certificate of appealability (COA) from a denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is granted where: 1) there was jurisdiction to review the petition; 2) reasonable jurists would find it debatable whether the district court abused its discretion with respect to equitable tolling and timeliness rulings; and 3) reasonable jurists could debate whether the petition stated a valid constitutional claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

district court erred in finding that the petition was untimely

Pierson v. Dormire, No. 06-2545

Denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which challenged a conviction for robbery and armed criminal action, is reversed where the district court erred in finding that the petition was untimely. Under Nichols v. Bowersox, 172 F.3d 1068 (8th Cir. 1999), a Missouri state prisoner's judgment becomes final within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. section 2244(d)(1)(A) exactly ninety days after his conviction is affirmed on direct appeal, even if he has not filed a motion for transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court.