On Point: 22. Habeas corpus

Cavazos v. Shirley Ree Smith, USSC No. 10-1115, 10/31/11 (per curiam); prior history: Smith v. Mitchell, 437 F.3d 884 (9th Cir. 2006), vacated and remanded in light of Carey v. Musladin, 549 U. S. 70 (2006) by Patrick v. Smith, 550 U. S. 915, reinstated on remand, 508 F. 3d 1256 (2007); vacated and remanded in light of McDaniel v.

Docket

Decision below: Wood v. Milyard, 10th Cir, 11/26/10

Questions Presented (by the Court):

1) Does an appellate court have the authority to raise sua sponte a 28 U.S.C. §2244(d) statute of limitations defense?

2) Does the State’s declaration before the district court that it “will not challenge, but [is] not conceding, the timeliness of Wood’s habeas petition,” amount to a deliberate waiver of any statute of limitations defense the State may have had?

seventh circuit court of appeals decision

Habeas – Ineffective Assistance, State Court Failure to Reach – Standard of Review 

… 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 which we “ ‘dispose of the matter as law and justice require.’ ” Id. at 326 (quoting § 2243). This is “a more generous standard,” George v.

seventh circuit court of appeals decision

Habeas – Counsel – Appeal 

When a defendant in a criminal case specifically instructs a lawyer to file a notice of appeal, the lawyer’s failure to do so deprives the defendant of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, regardless of whether an appeal was likely to succeed. Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 477 (2000); Peguero v. United States,

seventh circuit court of appeals decision, denying habeas relief on review of Wis. COA No. 2008AP1533-CR; prior history: 2001AP713-CR, 1995AP1856-CR

Habeas – Exculpatory Evidence – Available to Defendant

Jardine argues that the State suppressed exculpatory evidence, namely that post-conviction testing of the gun he admittedly possessed but denied using to club the victim didn’t reveal the presence of the victim’s DNA.

seventh circuit court of appeals decision; cert granted, 4/30/12

Padilla v. Kentucky: Retroactivity – Habeas Review 

The holding of Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473, 1486 (2010), that as in incident of effective representation, “counsel must inform her client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation,” is a “new rule”

seventh circuit court of appeals decision, denying habeas relief in Wis COA No. 2008AP398-CR

Habeas – Duty to Preserve Apparent Exculpatory Evidence 

Pretrial destruction of car driven by McCarthy didn’t violate State’s duty to preserve exculpatory evidence, the court rejecting McCarthy’s argument that the destruction unconstitutionally impaired his affirmative defense of brake failure (against charge of causing great bodily harm by operating vehicle while under the influence,

Joseph Muniz v. Smith, 6th Cir. No. 09-2324, 7/29/11

sixth circuit court of appeal decision

Habeas – Ineffective Assistance – Sleeping Counsel 

The fact that counsel has slept through a portion of trial does not, alone, amount to denial of counsel so as to require relief under United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984), rather than inquiry into the prejudice component of  Strickland v.

MC Winston v. Boatwright, 7th Cir No. 10-1156, 8/19/11

seventh circuit court of appeals decision, denying habeas relief on review of unpublished decision in 2003AP3412 and 2005AP1255

Habeas – Jury Selection – Ineffective Assistance – Defense Counsel’s Discriminatory Use of Peremptories

In a nutshell, this case presents the question whether the constitutional rights of the petitioner, MC Winston,

seventh circuit court of appeals decision

Habeas – Certificate of Appealability

 Under § 2253(c)(2) of Title 28, “[a] certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” The Supreme Court has observed that an applicant has made a “substantial showing” where “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v.