Showing posts with label sentencing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sentencing. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

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

Friday, June 29, 2007

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

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