§Why CasetextPricing

RENO ON H.C.

Petitioner’s Second Supplement to the Traverse

81 Cited authorities

  1. Cullen v. Pinholster

    563 U.S. 170 (2011)   Cited 14,373 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that petitioner failed to show prejudice due to the extensive evidence that the prosecution presented

  2. O'Sullivan v. Boerckel

    526 U.S. 838 (1999)   Cited 17,836 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."

  3. Coleman v. Thompson

    501 U.S. 722 (1991)   Cited 26,260 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"

  4. Duncan v. Henry

    513 U.S. 364 (1995)   Cited 8,045 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding a claim raised in a state-court proceeding must be presented to that court as a federal constitutional claim or it is not exhausted for federal habeas corpus purposes

  5. Edwards v. Carpenter

    529 U.S. 446 (2000)   Cited 5,149 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

  6. Rose v. Lundy

    455 U.S. 509 (1982)   Cited 13,271 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district courts ordinarily must dismiss a § 2254 petition without prejudice if the petitioner has not exhausted his state postconviction remedies

  7. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 23,494 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

  8. Picard v. Connor

    404 U.S. 270 (1971)   Cited 12,688 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to preserve federal claim for habeas review, "the federal claim must be fairly presented to the state courts"

  9. Cone v. Bell

    556 U.S. 449 (2009)   Cited 1,802 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that " claim is procedurally barred when it has not been fairly presented to the state courts for their initial consideration"

  10. Walker v. Martin

    562 U.S. 307 (2011)   Cited 1,669 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a rule was firmly established because the California Supreme Court had "framed the [rule] for habeas petitioners in a trilogy of cases."

  11. Section 2254 - State custody; remedies in Federal courts

    28 U.S.C. § 2254   Cited 204,528 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"

  12. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,160 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or