19 Cited authorities

Harrington v. Richter
562 U.S. 86 (2011) Cited 26,276 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that AEDPA deference applies even when state court issues summary ruling
Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (1984) Cited 158,620 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"
Williams v. Taylor
529 U.S. 362 (2000) Cited 37,736 times 66 Legal Analyses
Holding that counsel's performance was deficient when their investigation failed to uncover "extensive records" filled with mitigation evidence concerning the defendant's family history, education, mental health, and rehabilitation
Cullen v. Pinholster
563 U.S. 170 (2011) Cited 14,334 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that petitioner failed to show prejudice due to the extensive evidence that the prosecution presented
Coleman v. Thompson
501 U.S. 722 (1991) Cited 26,221 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"
Estelle v. McGuire
502 U.S. 62 (1991) Cited 19,949 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions
Wiggins v. Smith
539 U.S. 510 (2003) Cited 9,463 times 45 Legal Analyses
Holding that counsel's performance was deficient when they failed to expand their investigation into the defendant's life history "after having acquired only rudimentary knowledge of his history from a narrow set of sources," especially when those sources indicated the existence of helpful mitigation evidence
Teague v. Lane
489 U.S. 288 (1989) Cited 7,700 times 99 Legal Analyses
Holding that the rule announced in Taylor v. Louisiana requiring the jury venire be drawn from a fair cross section of the community is procedural and does not apply retroactively
Lopez v. State
343 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) Cited 1,014 times
Holding requirements of second Strickland prong need not be considered if appellant fails to satisfy first Strickland prong
Armstead v. Scott
37 F.3d 202 (5th Cir. 1994) Cited 630 times
Holding that, where application was considered by same judge who presided over trial, a "paper" hearing is adequate
Section 2254 - State custody; remedies in Federal courts
28 U.S.C. § 2254 Cited 204,160 times 341 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct" and "[t]he applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence"
Rule 59 - New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 Cited 43,342 times 65 Legal Analyses
Allowing a party to move to alter or amend a judgment "no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment"

Escamilla v. Thaler, Director TDCJ-CID

19 Cited authorities

Holding that AEDPA deference applies even when state court issues summary ruling

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 counsel's performance was deficient when their investigation failed to uncover "extensive records" filled with mitigation evidence concerning the defendant's family history, education, mental health, and rehabilitation

Holding that petitioner failed to show prejudice due to the extensive evidence that the prosecution presented

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 a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions

Holding that the rule announced in Taylor v. Louisiana requiring the jury venire be drawn from a fair cross section of the community is procedural and does not apply retroactively

Holding requirements of second Strickland prong need not be considered if appellant fails to satisfy first Strickland prong

Holding that, where application was considered by same judge who presided over trial, a "paper" hearing is adequate

Holding that "a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct" and "[t]he applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence"

Allowing a party to move to alter or amend a judgment "no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment"