On Point: 22. Habeas corpus

Lafler v. Anthony Cooper, USSC No. 10-209, 3/21/12, vacating and remanding, 376 Fed. Appx. 563 (6th Cir. 2010); prior post; companion case: Missouri v. Frye, 10-444

Cooper turned down a favorable plea bargain and instead went to trial, after his attorney erroneously told him the prosecution would be unable to establish intent to kill because the victim had been shot below the waist.

Luis Mariano Martinez v. Ryan, USSC No. 10-1001, 3/20/12, reversing and remanding, 623 F.3d 731 (9th Cir. 2011)

Where, under state law, claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel must be raised in an initial-review collateral proceeding, a procedural default will not bar a federal habeas court from hearing a substantial claim of ineffective assistance at trial if, in the initial-review collateral proceeding, there was no counsel or counsel in that proceeding was ineffective.

seventh circuit decision

Habeas Procedure – Application for Successive Attack 

Application to extend the deadline for permission to file a second collateral attack, § 28 U.s.C. 2244(b), is premature:

Now before the court are papers Maxy labels a motion, in which he informs us that he intends to file a second § 2244(b) application. Maxy explains that the application will be untimely because the prison limits his use of the copy machine,

State ex rel. Gerald Porter v. Cockroft, 2011AP308, 2011AP308, District 1, 3/6/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Porter: Joseph E. Redding; case activity

 Ineffective assistance of counsel at a revocation hearing is reviewable by habeas corpus, ¶10, citing State v. Ramey, 121 Wis. 2d 177, 182, 359 N.W.2d 402 (Ct. App. 1984). But, because there is no right to counsel on review of a revocation order,

Wetzel v. John Lambert, USSC No. 11-38, 2/21/12, vacating and remanding 633 F.3d 126 (3rd Cir. 2011)

Lambert claimed that state prosecutors withheld exculpatory information: a “police activity sheet” that arguably suggested someone other than, or perhaps in addition to, himself committed the offense (robbery and murder); and that could have been used to impeach the principal state’s witness. The state (Pennsylvania) court deemed the information too ambiguous to show that someone else had committed the robbery,

Howes v. Randall Lee Fields, USSC No. 10-680, 2/21/12, reversing 617 F.3d 813 (6th Cir 2010); arguably abrogating, State v. Tonnie D. Armstrong, 223 Wis.2d 331, 588 N.W.2d 606 (1999)

Habeas – Review, Generally 

Under AEDPA, a federal court may grant a state prisoner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus if the state-court adjudication pursuant to which the prisoner is held “resulted in a decision that was contrary to,

seventh circuit decision

Habeas – Knowing Use of False Testimony (“Napue”) 

Due process prohibits knowing prosecutorial use of false testimony, Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269 (1959). However, the prosecutor’s exploitation of Bland’s incorrect testimony on a potentially important point (the date his gun was confiscated) doesn’t support habeas relief on a Napue-type theory.

Napue and Giglio hold that a prosecutor may not offer testimony that the prosecutor knows to be false.

Marilyn Mulero v. Thompson, 7th Cir No. 10-3875, 2/7/12

seventh circuit decision

Habeas – Procedural Bar 

Muleros’ failure to present various claims “through one complete round of state court review” operates as procedural default; citing, Smith v. McKee, 598 F.3d 374, 382 (7th Cir. 2010).

… While Mulero did present numerous other claims of ineffective assistance of counsel to the Illinois state trial court and in her petition for review to the Illinois Supreme Court,

7th circuit decision, denying habeas in relief

Habeas – Standard of Review – Ineffective Assistance of Counsel 

When “no state court has squarely addressed the merits” of a habeas claim, however, we review the claim under the pre-AEDPA standard of 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Under this “more generous standard,” George v. Smith, 586 F.3d 479, 484 (7th Cir. 2009), “we review the petitioner’s constitutional claim with deference to the state court,

Cory R. Maples v. Thomas, USSC No. 10-63, 1/18/12, reversing 586 F.3d 879 (11th Cir. 2009)

On “the uncommon facts presented here,” the Court finds that cause existed to excuse on federal habeas review Maples’ procedural default, namely his failure to file a timely appeal of his state (Alabama) postconviction petition.

The sole question this Court has taken up for review is whether,