Barajas v. Wise, No. 06-15494 (9th Cir. March 23, 2007)
Clearly established federal law requires the prosecution to provide reasons specific to the case in litigation if it declines to disclose the names and addresses of key witnesses. Grant of habeas relief in a drug-related case is affirmed where the testimony of an informant represented the only evidence against petitioner, and the state provided no reasons specific to the case for why it should not disclose the requested information.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0615494p.pdf
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Denial of petition for writ of habeas corpus is reversed
Miller v. Vannatta, No. 05-3978 (7th Cir. March 15, 2007)
Denial of petition for writ of habeas corpus is reversed and remanded with instructions to grant the petition where the Indiana Court of Appeals unreasonably applied federal law in concluding that defense counsel's decision to stand mute at defendant's sentencing hearing did not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/053978p.pdf
Denial of petition for writ of habeas corpus is reversed and remanded with instructions to grant the petition where the Indiana Court of Appeals unreasonably applied federal law in concluding that defense counsel's decision to stand mute at defendant's sentencing hearing did not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/053978p.pdf
death penalty case moved pro se to waive further federal proceedings
Comer v. Schriro, No. 98-99003 (9th Cir. March 15, 2007)
In proceedings arising when habeas petitioner in a death penalty case moved pro se to waive further federal proceedings, to terminate representation by his habeas counsel, and for dismissal of his appeal, the motions are granted and the appeal is dismissed where petitioner was competent and had voluntarily decided to waive further proceedings.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/9899003p.pdf
In proceedings arising when habeas petitioner in a death penalty case moved pro se to waive further federal proceedings, to terminate representation by his habeas counsel, and for dismissal of his appeal, the motions are granted and the appeal is dismissed where petitioner was competent and had voluntarily decided to waive further proceedings.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/9899003p.pdf
Sunday, March 11, 2007
The COA inquiry asks only if the District Court’s decision was debatable.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 01—7662
THOMAS JOE MILLER-EL, PETITIONER v. JANIE
COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT
OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL
DIVISION
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
[February 25, 2003]
Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case we once again examine when a state prisoner can appeal the denial or dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. In 1986 two Dallas County assistant district attorneys used peremptory strikes to exclude 10 of the 11 African-Americans eligible to serve on the jury which tried petitioner Thomas Joe Miller-El. During the ensuing 17 years, petitioner has been unsuccessful in establishing, in either state or federal court, that his conviction and death sentence must be vacated because the jury selection procedures violated the Equal Protection Clause and our holding in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). The claim now arises in a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. The procedures and standards applicable in the case are controlled by the habeas corpus statute codified at Title 28, chapter 153 of the United States Code, most recently amended in a substantial manner by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). In the interest of finality AEDPA constrains a federal court’s power to disturb state-court convictions.
To secure habeas relief, petitioner must demonstrate that a state court’s finding of the absence of purposeful discrimination was incorrect by clear and convincing evidence, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1), and that the corresponding factual determination was “objectively unreasonable” in light of the record before the court. The State represents to us that petitioner will not be able to satisfy his burden. That may or may not be the case. It is not, however, the question before us. The COA inquiry asks only if the District Court’s decision was debatable. Our threshold examination convinces us that it was.
The judgment of the Fifth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
No. 01—7662
THOMAS JOE MILLER-EL, PETITIONER v. JANIE
COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT
OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL
DIVISION
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
[February 25, 2003]
Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case we once again examine when a state prisoner can appeal the denial or dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. In 1986 two Dallas County assistant district attorneys used peremptory strikes to exclude 10 of the 11 African-Americans eligible to serve on the jury which tried petitioner Thomas Joe Miller-El. During the ensuing 17 years, petitioner has been unsuccessful in establishing, in either state or federal court, that his conviction and death sentence must be vacated because the jury selection procedures violated the Equal Protection Clause and our holding in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). The claim now arises in a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. The procedures and standards applicable in the case are controlled by the habeas corpus statute codified at Title 28, chapter 153 of the United States Code, most recently amended in a substantial manner by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). In the interest of finality AEDPA constrains a federal court’s power to disturb state-court convictions.
To secure habeas relief, petitioner must demonstrate that a state court’s finding of the absence of purposeful discrimination was incorrect by clear and convincing evidence, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1), and that the corresponding factual determination was “objectively unreasonable” in light of the record before the court. The State represents to us that petitioner will not be able to satisfy his burden. That may or may not be the case. It is not, however, the question before us. The COA inquiry asks only if the District Court’s decision was debatable. Our threshold examination convinces us that it was.
The judgment of the Fifth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
CIVIL RIGHTS, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, HEALTH LAW
Whitington v. Ortiz, No. 06-1362 (10th Cir. January 03, 2007)
Dismissal without prejudice of pro se prisoner's section 1983 action involving officials' denying him access to free hygiene products, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), is reversed and remanded where plaintiff properly exhausted the detention facility's grievance process before seeking judicial review. [To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com.] http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/10th/061362.html
Dismissal without prejudice of pro se prisoner's section 1983 action involving officials' denying him access to free hygiene products, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), is reversed and remanded where plaintiff properly exhausted the detention facility's grievance process before seeking judicial review. [To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com.] http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/10th/061362.html
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
habeas corpus tolling
Howard v. Ukibarri, 457 F.3d 1146 (10th Cir. 2006)(Held that the statute of limitations to file motion for writ of habeas corpus was tolled during pendency of motion for modification of sentence).
Sunday, November 05, 2006
KKK White Knights Leader
Harrington v. Gillis, 456 F.3d 119 (3rd Cir. 2006)(2254)(Flores-Ortega claim).
US v. Hull, 456 F.3d 133 (3rd Cir. 2006)(First impression; mere possession of a pipe bomb not a federal crime of violence. KKK White Knights Leader set up by informant).
US v. Wall, 456 F.3d 316 (3rd Cir. 2006)("Out of time" petition for rehearing restart the clock
for 1-year habeas filing).
US v. Charlesworth, 456 F.3d 347 (3rd Cir. 2006)(alien was denied opportuinty for judicial review of reinstating deportation order; 2. failure to inform alien
US v. Hull, 456 F.3d 133 (3rd Cir. 2006)(First impression; mere possession of a pipe bomb not a federal crime of violence. KKK White Knights Leader set up by informant).
US v. Wall, 456 F.3d 316 (3rd Cir. 2006)("Out of time" petition for rehearing restart the clock
for 1-year habeas filing).
US v. Charlesworth, 456 F.3d 347 (3rd Cir. 2006)(alien was denied opportuinty for judicial review of reinstating deportation order; 2. failure to inform alien
defendant's amended motion was insufficient because it was not submitted under oath or accompanied by an affidavit.
US v. Kafo, No. 05-3034 (7th Cir. November 03, 2006)
Denial of a motion brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2255 is vacated and remanded where defendant's amended motion was insufficient because it was not submitted under oath or accompanied by an affidavit. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/053034p.pdf
Friday, November 03, 2006
counsels’ inadequate representation due to a conflict of interest and a failure to raise that claim on appeal
Hammon v. Ward, No. 05-6158 (10th Cir. October 26, 2006)
Denial of a habeas petition challenging convictions for possession of a controlled dangerous substance, and firearms-related offenses is vacated and remanded for an evidentiary hearing where petitioner made sufficient allegations to merit the opportunity to present evidence in support of his habeas claim concerning his counsels’ inadequate representation due to a conflict of interest and a failure to raise that claim on appeal. http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/10th/056158.html
Thursday, November 02, 2006
swiped from volkala conspiracy
[Jonathan Adler, October 26, 2006 at 8:06pm] 0 Trackbacks / Possibly More Trackbacks
Sixth Circuit Habeas Happenings:
There was lots of activity and acrimony relating to habeas corpus petitions on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit last week. On Thursday, the Court rejected a petition for rehearing en banc in Keith v. Mitchell over the dissent of four judges. The original three-judge panel split 2-1, with Chief Judge Boggs writing the majority for himself and Judge Gibbons and Judge Clay dissenting. Judge Clay dissented again from the denial of en banc review, joined by Judges Moore, Martin, and Cole. His dissent argued that Kevin Keith received constitutionally inadequate assistance of counsel during the mitigation phase of his trial.
Judge Martin wrote separately “to express again [his] dismay and frustration with the shortcomings of our approach to reviewing death sentences through habeas corpus appeals,” and to suggest that legal representation in capital cases is potentially unconstitutional. Martin continued:
members of this Court have gone on record to second-guess the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, and this Court, that requires counsel to conduct an adequate investigation of potential mitigating circumstances for purposes of capital sentencing, and mandates the reversal of convictions where this does not occur. [Here Martin cites the opinions by Chief Judge Boggs and Judge Suhrheinrich in Poindexter v. Mitchell, which I covered here.] This reasoning strikes me as demonstrating callousness and possible animosity toward the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.Martin further intimated that this “animosity” likely influenced the outcome in this case.
On the same day, in Apanovitch v. Houk, the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded the district court’s denial of Anthony Apanovitch’s habeas petition “[i]n light of the state’s apparent failure to provide potentially exculpatory materials to Apanovitch prior to the filing of his petition” and the availability of evidence that had not undergone DNA testing. The panel’s unanimous opinion was written by Chief Judge Boggs, joined by judges Daughtrey and Moore.
On Friday, a little bit of disagreement resurfaced on the Sixth, but not along the usual ideological lines. In Spisak v. Mitchell, the Sixth Circuit granted a death row inmate's habeas petition on the grounds that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during the mitigation phase and the judge gave improper jury instructions. If nothing else, "the decision is worth a read to see just how ineffective a capital attorney can be," observes Robert Loblaw on the Decision of the Day blog.
The majority opinion in Spisak, written by Judge Clay, rejected the inmate's other claims. Judge Moore wrote an opinion dissenting in part, as she would have granted the petition on additional grounds, specifically "the trial court’s exclusion of expert testimony and evidence regarding Spisak’s insanity defense and the trial court’s refusal to submit the insanity defense to the jury."
Given that the panel of Judges Clay, Daughtrey and Moore was, in Loblaw's words, "every habeas petitioner’s dream," and not representative of the current composition of the Sixth Circuit on habeas issues these days, it will be interesting to see whether the state seeks en banc review.
[Links via Decision of the Day.]
Sixth Circuit Habeas Happenings:
There was lots of activity and acrimony relating to habeas corpus petitions on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit last week. On Thursday, the Court rejected a petition for rehearing en banc in Keith v. Mitchell over the dissent of four judges. The original three-judge panel split 2-1, with Chief Judge Boggs writing the majority for himself and Judge Gibbons and Judge Clay dissenting. Judge Clay dissented again from the denial of en banc review, joined by Judges Moore, Martin, and Cole. His dissent argued that Kevin Keith received constitutionally inadequate assistance of counsel during the mitigation phase of his trial.
Judge Martin wrote separately “to express again [his] dismay and frustration with the shortcomings of our approach to reviewing death sentences through habeas corpus appeals,” and to suggest that legal representation in capital cases is potentially unconstitutional. Martin continued:
members of this Court have gone on record to second-guess the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, and this Court, that requires counsel to conduct an adequate investigation of potential mitigating circumstances for purposes of capital sentencing, and mandates the reversal of convictions where this does not occur. [Here Martin cites the opinions by Chief Judge Boggs and Judge Suhrheinrich in Poindexter v. Mitchell, which I covered here.] This reasoning strikes me as demonstrating callousness and possible animosity toward the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.Martin further intimated that this “animosity” likely influenced the outcome in this case.
On the same day, in Apanovitch v. Houk, the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded the district court’s denial of Anthony Apanovitch’s habeas petition “[i]n light of the state’s apparent failure to provide potentially exculpatory materials to Apanovitch prior to the filing of his petition” and the availability of evidence that had not undergone DNA testing. The panel’s unanimous opinion was written by Chief Judge Boggs, joined by judges Daughtrey and Moore.
On Friday, a little bit of disagreement resurfaced on the Sixth, but not along the usual ideological lines. In Spisak v. Mitchell, the Sixth Circuit granted a death row inmate's habeas petition on the grounds that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during the mitigation phase and the judge gave improper jury instructions. If nothing else, "the decision is worth a read to see just how ineffective a capital attorney can be," observes Robert Loblaw on the Decision of the Day blog.
The majority opinion in Spisak, written by Judge Clay, rejected the inmate's other claims. Judge Moore wrote an opinion dissenting in part, as she would have granted the petition on additional grounds, specifically "the trial court’s exclusion of expert testimony and evidence regarding Spisak’s insanity defense and the trial court’s refusal to submit the insanity defense to the jury."
Given that the panel of Judges Clay, Daughtrey and Moore was, in Loblaw's words, "every habeas petitioner’s dream," and not representative of the current composition of the Sixth Circuit on habeas issues these days, it will be interesting to see whether the state seeks en banc review.
[Links via Decision of the Day.]
contrary to the ineffective assistance of counsel standard
Goodman v. Bertrand, No. 04-3946 (7th Cir. October 31, 2006)
Denial of petition for writ of habeas corpus is reversed where the state court decision in defendant's appeal was contrary to the ineffective assistance of counsel standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and an unreasonable application of the standard because the cumulative effect of the defense counsel's errors constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/043946p.pdf
Denial of petition for writ of habeas corpus is reversed where the state court decision in defendant's appeal was contrary to the ineffective assistance of counsel standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and an unreasonable application of the standard because the cumulative effect of the defense counsel's errors constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/043946p.pdf
district court exceeded the permissible bounds
Yung v. Walker, No. 03-2023 (2d Cir. October 31, 2006)
Grant of conditional writ of habeas corpus and denial of respondents' request for an evidentiary hearing is vacated where the district court exceeded the permissible bounds of its discretion in granting the petition without affording the state courts an opportunity to make additional findings and to conduct an evidentiary hearing to permit the parties to present additional evidence concerning the justification for the closure.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/032023p.pdf
Grant of conditional writ of habeas corpus and denial of respondents' request for an evidentiary hearing is vacated where the district court exceeded the permissible bounds of its discretion in granting the petition without affording the state courts an opportunity to make additional findings and to conduct an evidentiary hearing to permit the parties to present additional evidence concerning the justification for the closure.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/032023p.pdf
Monday, October 23, 2006
introduction of the confession violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause, and the error was not harmless
Stevens v. Ortiz (10/19/06 - No. 05-1250)
Denial of a habeas petition in a first-degree murder case is reversed where a conclusion -- that the admission of a non-testifying accomplice's confession, which also inculpated petitioner in a murder-for-hire, did not violate petitioner's rights under the Confrontation Clause -- was contrary to clearly established federal law, the introduction of the confession violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause, and the error was not harmless. http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/10th/051250.html
Denial of a habeas petition in a first-degree murder case is reversed where a conclusion -- that the admission of a non-testifying accomplice's confession, which also inculpated petitioner in a murder-for-hire, did not violate petitioner's rights under the Confrontation Clause -- was contrary to clearly established federal law, the introduction of the confession violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause, and the error was not harmless. http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/10th/051250.html
untested DNA
Apanovitch v. Houk (10/19/06 - No. 94-3117)
Denial of a 1991 habeas petition in a death penalty case is reversed in part and remanded, pursuant to a Brady claim, in light of the state’s apparent failure to provide potentially exculpatory materials to defendant prior to the filing of his petition, and of the untested nature of certain DNA evidence. The remainder of the district court's order is affirmed over remaining Brady claims, a claim of insufficient evidence, and challenges to the admission of certain witnesses. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/943117p.pdf
Spisak v. Mitchell (10/20/06 - No. 03-4034)
Denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus in a death penalty case is reversed in part as to denial of claims that: 1) petitioner's trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance during the mitigation phase of his trial; and 2) unanimity and “acquittal-first” jury instructions infringed petitioner's constitutional rights. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/034034p.pdf
Denial of a 1991 habeas petition in a death penalty case is reversed in part and remanded, pursuant to a Brady claim, in light of the state’s apparent failure to provide potentially exculpatory materials to defendant prior to the filing of his petition, and of the untested nature of certain DNA evidence. The remainder of the district court's order is affirmed over remaining Brady claims, a claim of insufficient evidence, and challenges to the admission of certain witnesses. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/943117p.pdf
Spisak v. Mitchell (10/20/06 - No. 03-4034)
Denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus in a death penalty case is reversed in part as to denial of claims that: 1) petitioner's trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance during the mitigation phase of his trial; and 2) unanimity and “acquittal-first” jury instructions infringed petitioner's constitutional rights. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/034034p.pdf
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Ineffective assistance of counsel
Stanley v. Bartley, No. 06-2184 (7th Cir. October 17, 2006)
Grant of a petition for habeas corpus by a convicted murderer is affirmed where defense counsel's failure to interview witnesses prior to trial rendered his assistance ineffective. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/062184p.pdf
Due Process violated
Niederstadt v. Nixon, No. 05-4329 (8th Cir. October 17, 2006)
Grant of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus from a reinstated conviction for sodomy is affirmed where, in applying its construction of the sodomy statute at issue to defendant, the Missouri Supreme Court violated his right to due process as neither the plain language of the statute nor state law at the time of defendant's conduct defined "forcible compulsion" as encompassing his acts. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/054329p.pdf
Monday, October 16, 2006
habeas corpus winner
US v. Nelson (10/09/06 - No. 06-6071)
An order denying defendant's motion to amend and supplement his previously denied motion for a writ of habeas corpus is vacated for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as the motion had to be treated as a successive motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. section 2255. Further, construing defendant's notice of appeal as an implied application for authorization to file another § 2255 motion, authorization is denied. http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/10th/066071.html
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Counsel failed to investigate
Outten v. Kearney (09/28/06 - No. 04-9003)
Petition for writ of habeas corpus in a first degree murder capital punishment case is granted and the case remanded for resentencing where counsel's failure to conduct a reasonable investigation of defendant's background in anticipation of his capital sentencing violated his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/3rd/049003p.p
Petition for writ of habeas corpus in a first degree murder capital punishment case is granted and the case remanded for resentencing where counsel's failure to conduct a reasonable investigation of defendant's background in anticipation of his capital sentencing violated his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/3rd/049003p.p
Ineffective assistance of counsel
In re Hernandez (09/27/06 - No. G035909).
Habeas petition challenging conviction of first degree murder, kidnapping, hit-and-run driving causing death, and making a fraudulent insurance claim, finding of sanity by jury, and 25-year-to-life sentence, is granted as to the issue of petitioner's sanity where trial counsel committed prejudicial error by failing to object to the testimony of the prosecution’s expert witnesses at the sanity trial. http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/caapp4th/slip/2006/g035909.htmlhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/g035909.pdf
Monday, September 25, 2006
All my blogs
WINNING FEDERAL CRIMINAL CASES - http://winning-federal-criminal-cases.blogsDissenting Opinions -http://dissentingopinions.blogspot.comWinning Federal Criminal Cases -http://winning-federal-criminal-cases.blogspot.comIneffective Assistance of Counsel - http://ineffectiveassistanceofcounsel.blogspot.comInteresting Criminal Cases - http://interestingcriminalcases.blogspot.comWinning SSI Disability Cases - http://winningsssdisabilitycases.blogspot.comHomeless in Heaven - http://homelessinheaven.blogspot.comHabeas Corpus Winners http://habeascorpuswinners.blogspot.comMontana Winning Cases http://montana winningcases.blogspot.comWinning Daily Decisions http://winningdailydecisions.blogspot.comDaily Decisions - http://dailydecision.blogspot.com/atom.xml MarkGivenPhotographs http://markgivenphotographs.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)