Legal Opinion · Dissent

Charles Hemstreet v. Charles Greiner, Superintendent

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided May 11, 2004No. 02-2747Published

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

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Williams v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  3. Evitts v. LuceySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  4. Smith v. RobbinsSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  5. Angel Sellan v. Robert KuhlmanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2001

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

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

Powered by the Exa API