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
Showing posts with label civil law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label civil law. Show all posts
Friday, June 29, 2007
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.
Labels:
civil law,
criminal law,
Habeas Corpus,
Informant testimony
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.
Labels:
civil law,
crimnal law,
exonerate,
Habeas Corpus
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.
Labels:
civil law,
constitutional right,
criminal law,
Habeas Corpus
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
Labels:
civil law,
constitutional right,
criminal law,
Habeas Corpus
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)