On Point: 22. Habeas corpus

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seventh circuit court of appeals decision, denying habeas relief on review of unpublished decision in 2003AP3412 and 2005AP1255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

Docket

Lower court decision: Clair v. Ayers, 9th Cir. Nos. 05-99005, 08-75135, 11/17/10

Question Presented:

At the end of ten years of capital federal habeas corpus proceedings in the district court, respondent suddenly complained about and sought replacement of his court-appointed public defender with a new appointed lawyer. The district court refused, explaining that “it appears Petitioner’s counsel is doing a proper job”

seventh circuit court of appeals decision

Habeas – Successive Petition – Rule 60(b) Motion

A Rule 60 motion for relief from (habeas) judgment amounts to an impermissible successive petition – which the district court lacks jurisdiction to entertain – if it raises arguments forbidden by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) or (2), Gonzales v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005). Although the district court held that Freeman had waived the issue (right to conflict-free counsel) before raising it in his Rule 60 motion,

Docket

Decision below: 623 F. 3d 222 (5th Cir. 2010)

Questions Presented (from SCOTUS docket page):

1. WAS THERE JURISDICTION TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY UNDER 28 U.S.C. §2253(C) AND TO ADJUDICATE PETITIONER’S APPEAL?

2. WAS THE APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS OUT OF TIME UNDER 28 U.S.C. §2244(D)(1) DUE TO “THE DATE ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT BECAME FINAL BY THE CONCLUSION OF DIRECT REVIEW OR THE EXPIRATION OF THE TIME FOR SEEKING SUCH REVIEW”?

Docket

Decision below:  Martinez v. Schriro, 623 F.3d 731 (9th Cir. 2010)

Question Presented:

Whether a defendant in a state criminal case who is prohibited by state law from raising on direct appeal any claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, but who has a state-law right to raise such a claim in a first postconviction proceeding, has a federal constitutional right to effective assistance of first post-conviction counsel specifically with respect to his ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim.

On Point is very pleased to present this guest post discussion of Skinner v. Switzer by Brandon L. Garrett, Professor of Law, University of Virginia. Professor Garrett’s most recent book, “Convicting the Innocent,” was reviewed by in the New York Times Sunday Book Review 5/26/11.

The U.S. Supreme Court settled another boundary dispute about what lies inside and what lies outside of habeas corpus today in Skinner v.

in-chambers opinion on motion to stay mandate

Habeas – Stay of Mandate

The State’s request to stay the mandate in the court’s grant of relief is denied by Judge Ripple’s in chambers opinion. The standard for granting a stay is set forth in Books v. City of Elkhart, 239 F.3d 826, 828 (7th Cir. 2001):

When a party asks this court to stay its mandate pending the filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari,

Bobby v. Harry Mitts, USSC No. 10-1000, 5/2/11 (per curiam)

The death penalty may not be imposed when the jury isn’t permitted to consider a verdict of guilt on a lesser included, non-capital offense supported by the evidence, Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 (1980). As the Court now notes:

such a scheme intolerably enhances the irrelevant considerations into the factfinding process, diverting the jury’s attention from the central issue of whether the State has satisfied its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of a capital crime.” Id.,

7th circuit decision

Habeas – Appeal: Appointed Counsel’s Obligation to Argue Issues

The court clarifies the “scope” of counsel’s responsibilities when appointed on habeas appeal. Counsel has no obligation to argue claims not certified for appeal by the court. Therefore, if after independent review, “counsel agrees that the non-certified claims are not debatable, he or she can safely set aside the non-certified claims notwithstanding the petitioner-appellant’s desire to pursue those claims on appeal.”