54 Cited authorities

Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (1984) Cited 158,573 times 176 Legal Analyses
Holding an "error by counsel" doesn't "warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding" where in the context of the whole proceeding the identified error "had no effect on the judgment"
O'Sullivan v. Boerckel
526 U.S. 838 (1999) Cited 17,784 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that, to ensure exhaustion a petitioner must present their claims throughout "one complete round of the State's established appellate review process."
Coleman v. Thompson
501 U.S. 722 (1991) Cited 26,212 times 49 Legal Analyses
Holding in relevant part that federal habeas review of a procedurally defaulted claim is barred "unless the prisoner can demonstrate cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law"
Edwards v. Carpenter
529 U.S. 446 (2000) Cited 5,133 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that an ineffective assistance claim can only supply cause to overcome the procedural default of another constitutional claim if the petitioner can show that cause and prejudice excused the procedural default of the ineffective assistance claim itself
Jones v. Barnes
463 U.S. 745 (1983) Cited 11,144 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding that it was not ineffective assistance for appellate counsel to decline to make every nonfrivolous argument requested by the defendant
Herrera v. Collins
506 U.S. 390 (1993) Cited 5,526 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding "the threshold showing for such an assumed right [of actual innocence] would necessarily be extraordinarily high"
Chaidez v. United States
568 U.S. 342 (2013) Cited 1,471 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that Padilla could not be applied retroactively to cases which became final before the case was decided
Evitts v. Lucey
469 U.S. 387 (1985) Cited 4,483 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that the right to effective assistance of counsel includes the right to effective assistance of appellate counsel
Sumner v. Mata
449 U.S. 539 (1981) Cited 2,770 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that § 2254 "makes no distinction between the factual determinations of a state trial court and those of a state appellate court"
People v. Bleakley
69 N.Y.2d 490 (N.Y. 1987) Cited 11,291 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Appellate Division committed reversible error when it "avoid[ed] its exclusive statutory authority to review the weight of the evidence in criminal cases"
Section 2244 - Finality of determination
28 U.S.C. § 2244 Cited 65,147 times 166 Legal Analyses
Holding that § 2255 incorporates § 2244(b) as part of the certification procedures of § 2244 and instructing that "the district court must dismiss the motion that we have allowed the applicant to file, without reaching the merits of the motion, if the court finds that the movant has not satisfied the requirements for the filing of such a motion."

The People, Respondent,v.Kevin Kruger, Appellant.

54 Cited authorities

Holding an "error by counsel" doesn't "warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding" where in the context of the whole proceeding the identified error "had no effect on the judgment"

Holding that, to ensure exhaustion a petitioner must present their claims throughout "one complete round of the State's established appellate review process."

Holding in relevant part that federal habeas review of a procedurally defaulted claim is barred "unless the prisoner can demonstrate cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law"

Holding that an ineffective assistance claim can only supply cause to overcome the procedural default of another constitutional claim if the petitioner can show that cause and prejudice excused the procedural default of the ineffective assistance claim itself

Holding that it was not ineffective assistance for appellate counsel to decline to make every nonfrivolous argument requested by the defendant

Holding "the threshold showing for such an assumed right [of actual innocence] would necessarily be extraordinarily high"

Holding that Padilla could not be applied retroactively to cases which became final before the case was decided

Holding that the right to effective assistance of counsel includes the right to effective assistance of appellate counsel

Holding that § 2254 "makes no distinction between the factual determinations of a state trial court and those of a state appellate court"

Holding that the Appellate Division committed reversible error when it "avoid[ed] its exclusive statutory authority to review the weight of the evidence in criminal cases"