Five on habeas

NYPD used a tracking order based on exigency followed by a written order to locate him. This was not shown to be an unconscionable breakdown in the process for Stone purposes. Also, his phone calls from Rikers were validly recorded. Lamb v. Capra, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165441 (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 13, 2024).*

2254 petitioner sought to get around Stone v. Powell by claiming an “unconscionable breakdown” in the state process, but it wasn’t. “Moreover, petitioner’s claim that the state court should have reopened the suppression hearing is non-cognizable on federal habeas review.” Shepard v. Rich, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164255 (N.D.N.Y. Sep. 12, 2024).*

Defendant’s 2255 claim that counsel was ineffective for not challenging the informant’s tale as just another drug dealer’s story fails. It was more than that and would have lost anyway. Maddox v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163762 (N.D. W.Va. Aug. 13, 2024),* adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162904 (N.D. W. Va. Sep. 10, 2024).*

2254 relief denied for two reasons: you can’t challenge a search in 2254 if you had a chance to litigate it and didn’t and then his guilty plea waived it. Kliewer v. Bennett, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163946 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 20, 2024),* adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162809 (W.D. Wash. Sep. 10, 2024).*

2254 petitioner’s claim Fourth Amendment ineffective assistance claim was defaulted at the state level, and it can’t be pursued on the merits. Cutlip v. Warden, Corr. Reception Ctr., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164412 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 12, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Issue preclusion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.