Miller-El v. Cockrell

Holding that the government's exclusion of 10 out of 14, or 91%, of Black prospective jurors—along with the state's unreliable justifications—showed purposeful discrimination

Harrington v. Richter

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

Williams v. Taylor

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

Jackson v. Virginia

Holding that courts conducting review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction should view the "evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution"

O'Sullivan v. Boerckel

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

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"

Rhines v. Warden

Holding that the district court should allow a petitioner to "delete the unexhausted claims and to proceed with the exhausted claims if dismissal of the entire petition would unreasonably impair the petitioner's right to obtain federal relief"

Lockyer v. Andrade

Holding that pro se prisoner's timely motion for an extension to file an appeal was the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal

Wiggins v. Smith

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

Renico v. Lett

Holding that a state court was not obligated to employ a three-part test enunciated by the circuit court, because those factors were not clearly established by Supreme Court precedent

Section 2254 - State custody; remedies in Federal courts

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"

Section 2253 - Appeal

Conditioning the taking of an appeal on the issuance of a "certificate of appealability"

Rule 22 - Habeas Corpus and Section 2255 Proceedings

Explaining that an application for habeas relief requires that "a circuit justice or a circuit or district judge issue[] a certificate of appealability" before an appeal is taken

Section 440.10 - Motion to vacate judgment

Stating that the court “must deny” a § 440.10 motion when sufficient facts appear on the record to permit appellate review of the claim and the defendant unjustifiably failed to raise that issue on direct appeal

Section 265.03 - Criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree

Finding a person guilty of second degree criminal possession of a weapon when he or she "possesses any loaded firearm . . . [outside of a] person's home or place of business."

Section 265.02 - Criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree

Prohibiting Tasers and stun guns

Section 120.10 - Assault in the first degree

Causing serious physical injury with a dangerous instrument

Section 155.35 - [Effective Until 7/19/2024] Grand larceny in the third degree

Pertaining to grand larceny in the third degree

Section 165.45 - Criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree

Finding a person guilty of fourth degree criminal possession of stolen property when he or she "knowingly possess stolen property, with the intent to benefit himself or [another] . . . other than owner thereof or to impede recovery by the owner, and when: . . . [t]he property consists of one or more firearms . . . ."

Section 165.50 - Criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree