CA11: Successor habeas over detention that led to confession not based on newly discovered evidence

Petitioner’s 2254 successor petition is denied on his claim that his detention was unreasonable that led to his confession. “Nero’s claims do not meet the statutory criteria. He indicates that his claims do not rely on a new rule of constitutional law, and he does not cite to any decision creating a new rule of constitutional law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A). While he indicates that his claims rely on newly discovered evidence, he does not point to any evidence that was not previously available, and his arguments that his counsel failed to request a Richardson hearing does not constitute evidence. …” In re Nero, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 440 (11th Cir. Jan. 7, 2021).*

2254 habeas petitioner sought review of his Fourth Amendment claim raised and rejected in state court. Barred from habeas. Laboriel v. Lee, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2995 (S.D. N.Y. Jan. 7, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Issue preclusion, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d). Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.