Duncan v. Henry

10 Citing briefs

  1. Robinson v. Carpenter

    RESPONSE to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

    Filed January 23, 2015

    To ensure that the State has the necessary “opportunity” to correct alleged violations of its prisoners’ federal rights, a habeas petitioner must “fairly present” his claim in each appropriate state court for consideration before seeking federal relief. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 365 (1995). Further, when a state court relies on procedural default to deny a petitioner’s federal claims, but then alternatively dismisses claims on the merits, the claims are procedurally defaulted for purposes of federal habeas review.

  2. RENO ON H.C.

    Petitioner’s Second Supplement to the Traverse

    Filed April 27, 2012

    The substance ofthe claim, and its federal constitutional aspects, were presented to the state court, which had a fair opportunity to rule on the merits. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. at 365-366. Nothing moreis necessary.

  3. MARTINEZ

    Petitioner’s Petition for Review

    Filed June 16, 2015

    In other words, while the Court of ' Petitioner also notes that in order to present the federal constitutional claimsin the federal court, in the event relief is not granted in the instant court, each of the claims must be presented in a Petition for Review to this Court. (Duncan v. Henry (1995) 513 U.S. 364, 365-366 [115 S.Ct. 887, 130 L.Ed.2d 865].) Appealcites to evidence suggesting that the jury could have found petitioner guilty as, a direct aider and abettor, Chiu requires a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubtthat the jury did base its finding upon that theory.

  4. Robinson v. Carpenter

    REPLY to Response to Habeas Petition re Response to Habeas Petition

    Filed March 24, 2015

    Similarly, in Duncan, the Court analyzed whether the state prisoner had informed the state court that his evidentiary objection was a federal constitutional claim in addition to being a state constitutional claim. See 513 U.S. at 364-66. In neither case did the Supreme Court approve the excision of sub-paragraphs within a Petition or individual factual allegations supporting a particular claim.

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

    Brief

    Filed April 29, 2014

    to appeal to this Court, since Defendant-Appellant only maintained a pennissive right to appeal to this Court, but it also forfeited his ability to seek habeas relief for failing to exhaust his state remedies. Under 28 U.S.C.S. §2254(a), Appellant was entitled, of right, to file with the "Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court ... an application for a writ of habeas corpus ... on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States ... " 18 However, in order to exercise his right to appeal to the Federal Courts, Defendant-Appellant was required first to exhaust his remedies in the State Court system by pursuing an appeal to this Court. 28 U.S.C.S. §2254(b)( I) expressly indicates that a writ of habeas corpus "shall not be granted unless it appears that ... the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State ... " See also Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27 (2003 ); Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 u.s. 270 (1971 ). The purpose of the foregoing statute is to give "the State the 'opportunity to pass upon and correct' alleged violations of its prisoners' federal rights.

  6. PEOPLE v. JACKSON (BAILEY)

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed June 27, 2012

    The erroneous admission of this unreliable evidence deprived petitioner of his right to a fair jury trial and due process, as guaranteed by the United States and California Constitutions. (U.S. Const., 5th, 6th & 14th Amends.; Cal. Const., art. I, §§ 15-16. see also Duncan v. Henry (1995) 513 U.S. 364, 365-366 [noting argument (though deemingit forfeited) that admission of evidence violated Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of due process]; Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62, 75.) A criminal defendant’s right to due processprotects against the admission of unreliable evidence, particularly against unreliable identification evidence.

  7. PEOPLE v. GOMEZ

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed March 21, 2012

    (Peoplev. Partida, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 439,citing Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62, 70; Spencer v. Texas (1967) 385 U.S. 554, 563-564; People v. Falsetta (1999) 21 Cal.4th 903, 913; Duncan v. Henry (1995) 513 U.S.364, 366; see also Lisenba v. California (1941) 314 U.S.219, 236 [“The aim of the requirement of due processis not to exclude presumptively false evidence, but to prevent fundamental unfairness in the use of evidence whethertrue or false.”]; U.S. Const., 14th Amend.) The evidence here lacked any legitimate probative value, serving only to unfairly prejudice Gomezin the jury’s eyes.

  8. PEOPLE v. CASE

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed April 11, 2011

    The evidence of appellant’s other crimes and acts of violence, as well as the evidence of the investigating officers’ repeated assertions oftheir certitude regarding his guilt, both cumulatively and individually, were “so inflammatory as to prevent a fair trial.” (See Duncan v. Henry (1995) 513 U.S. 364, 366.) In McKinney v. Rees, supra, 993 F.2d 1378, the Ninth Circuit held that the erroneous admission of “other crimes evidence violate[s] due process where: (1) the balance of the prosecution’s case against the defendant was ‘solely circumstantial;’ (2) the other crimes evidence . . . was similar to the [crimes] for which he was ontrial; (3) the prosecutor relied on the other crimes evidence at several points during the trial; and (4) the other crimes evidence was ‘emotionally charged.’

  9. PEOPLE v. JONES (KIONGOZI)

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed October 15, 2010

    The United States Supreme Court has recognized that due process can be violated if admission of evidence was “so inflammatory as to preventa fair trial.” (Duncan v. Henry (1995) 513 U.S. 364, 366 (per curiam).) Here, the jurors were allowedto considerthe irrelevant telephone conversation between appellant and his brother as proof of appellant's guilt.

  10. Buck v. Stephens

    MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed September 6, 2005

    Thus, before a federal court will entertain the alleged errors, a petitioner must have first provided the state’s highest court with a fair opportunity to apply (1) the controlling federal constitutional principles to (2) the same factual allegations. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365-66 (1995); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982); Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 6 (1982); Thomas v. Collins, 919 F.2d 333, 334 (5th Cir. 1990). Moreover, all of the grounds raised in a federal application for writ of habeas corpus must have been “fairly presented” to the state courts prior to being presented to the federal courts.