Legal Opinion

Constant v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Decided December 14, 2012No. Civil Action No. 11-0822PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CYNTHIA REED EDDY, United States Magistrate Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

For the reasons set forth below, Edward Constant’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus will be denied in part and granted in part.

A. Double Jeopardy And Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel

Federal habeas relief is not warranted on petitioner’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), for waiving a Double Jeopardy challenge to his retrial. After a guilty verdict but before sentencing, trial counsel successfully moved for a new trial…

2Cases cited87 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Miller-El v. CockrellSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
  3. Williams v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  4. Harrington v. RichterSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
  5. Jackson v. DennoSupreme Court of the United States · 1964

82 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. MinnisSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  2. State v. NorthcuttMontana Supreme Court · 2015
  3. Tucker v. WenerowiczDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2015
  4. State v. NorthcuttMontana Supreme Court · 2015

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API