Charles Hemstreet v. Charles Greiner, Superintendent
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1Dissent
B.D. PARKER, JR.,
dissenting.
According to the majority, Hemstreet is entitled to habeas relief for essentially three reasons: (1) his trial counsel was ineffective, (2) his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise his trial counsel’s ineffectiveness, and (3) the state court’s determination that he was not deprived of effective assistance of appellate counsel was, under AEDPA, “objectively unreasonable” in light of clearly established federal law, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Since I disagree with these…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Williams v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Evitts v. LuceySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Smith v. RobbinsSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Angel Sellan v. Robert KuhlmanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2001
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.