On Point blog, page 30 of 32
Federal Habeas – Procedure – Appellate – Recall Mandate
Michael Allen Lambert v. Buss, 489 F.3d 779 (Nos. 03-1015 & 05-2610, 6/12/07)
Issue/Holding: A motion to recall the mandate is subject to successive-petition restrictions.
Federal Habeas – Procedure — Appellate — Certificate of Appealability: Necessity
Rufus West v. Schneiter, 485 F. 3d 393 (7th Cir. 5/4/07)
Issue/Holding: “we now join the other circuits that have considered this issue and hold that §2253(c)(1) requires a certificate of appealability for any appeal in a proceeding under §2255 or where ‘the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court.’”
The court acknowledges that “(a) notice of appeal acts as a request for a certificate whether or not the prisoner files a separate application,”
Federal Habeas – Procedure – Appellate – Jurisdiction – Timeliness of NOA – Prison Mailbox Rule
Edmund Ingram v. Jones, 507 F. 3d 640 (Nos. 06-2766 & 06-2879, 11/14/07)
Issue/Holding: If a prison has a “legal mailing system,” and the inmate isn’t obligated to pay postage for legal mail, then the notice of appeal may be deemed filed when deposited in the system even without prepaid postage. However, “if a prison does not have a legal mailing system, the prisoner is required to show,
(State) Habeas Procedure, Generally
State ex rel Marvin Coleman v. McCaughtry, 2006 WI 49, reversing and remanding summary order of court of appeals, reconsideration denied, 2006 WI 121
For Coleman: Brian Kinstler
Issue/Holding:
¶18 A petition for writ of habeas corpus commences a civil proceeding wherein the petitioner claims an illegal denial of his or her liberty. State ex rel. Zdanczewicz v.
Enlargement of Direct Appeal Deadline Based on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel – Habeas in Court of Appeals as Exclusive Mechanism
State ex rel. Luis Santana v. Endicott, 2006 WI App 13
Issue/Holding1: A claim that lapsed direct appeal rights should be restored on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel must be sought via habeas filed in the court of appeals, pursuant to State v. Knight, 168 Wis. 2d 509, 484 N.W.2d 540 (1992):
¶1 … Although Santana may seek habeas relief on his ineffective assistance claim,
(State) Habeas – Enlargement of Direct Appeal Deadline Based on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel — Habeas in Court of Appeals as Exclusive Mechanism
State ex rel. Luis Santana v. Endicott, 2006 WI App 13
Pro se
Issue/Holding1: A claim that lapsed direct appeal rights should be restored on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel must be sought via habeas filed in the court of appeals, pursuant to State v. Knight, 168 Wis. 2d 509, 484 N.W.2d 540 (1992):
¶1 … Although Santana may seek habeas relief on his ineffective assistance claim,
Federal Habeas – Procedure — Appellate — Certificate of Appealability: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim
Dennis Thompson, Jr. v. Battaglia, 458 F. 3d 614 (7th Cir. No. 04-3110, 8/14/06)
Issue/Holding: Because (c)ounsel’s work must be assessed as a whole,” an ineffective-assistance claim is a single ground for relief for certificate of appealability purposes, though R. 2(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, does require that the petitioner specify all grounds for relief along with supporting facts.
(State) Habeas Procedure — Claim of Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel — Laches Bar
State ex rel Marvin Coleman v. McCaughtry, 2006 WI 49, reversing and remanding summary order of court of appeals, reconsideration denied, 2006 WI 121
For Coleman: Brian Kinstler
Issue/Holding:
¶28 Prihoda, Sawyer, Lohr and Schafer all employ a three-element test where the first element is unreasonable delay in bringing the claim and the other two elements apply to the party asserting laches: lack of knowledge (that the claim would be brought) and effect (prejudice).
Federal Habeas: Procedure — Appellate — Standard of Review — State Court Failure to Adjudicate Merits, Effect of
Larry W. Myartt v. Frank, 7th Cir No 04-2115, 1/21/05Issue/Holding:
… AEDPA standards apply only to claims that were “adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). In the instant case, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals did not address Myartt’s ineffective assistance claim, which is unsurprising because Myartt’s pro se filing failed to develop the claim or discuss relevant Sixth Amendment principles. In these circumstances,
(State) Habeas – Generally, Statutory vs. Common Law – Challenge to Ch. 980 Commitment
State ex rel. Frederick Lee Pharm v. Bartow, 2005 WI App 215
For Pharm: Roisin H. Bell (Pro Bono)
Issue/Holding( Dicta): ¶12, n. 6:
The State also draws a distinction between statutory habeas corpus and common law habeas corpus, contending that the circuit court properly ruled that Pharm was not entitled to statutory habeas corpus relief because he was committed under a valid judgment of commitment.