Legal Opinion
Cottenham v. Jamrog
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided August 21, 2007No. 04-1614UnpublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
2Per curiam
Petitioner-Appellant Ralph H. Cottenham, II (“Cottenham” or “Petitioner”), appeals the denial of his § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. For the following reasons, we REVERSE the district court’s judgment denying Cottenham’s petition and REMAND with instructions to grant a conditional writ of habeas corpus, giving the State of Michigan 120 days within which to provide Cottenham with an opportunity to file a notice of appeal pursuant to Michigan law and to proceed with a direct appeal on the merits if he so wishes, or failing that, to release him.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
P…
3Cases cited29 opinions
- Thomas v. ArnSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- United States v. W. R. Walters, United States of America v. Two Hundred Sixty-Two FirearmsCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1981
- Wainwright v. SykesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Picard v. ConnorSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by7 opinions
- Keeling v. Warden, Lebanon Correctional Inst.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2012
- Benitez v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2008
- Frank Nali v. Thomas PhillipsCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2012
- Benitez v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2008
- Dante Keeling v. Warden, Lebanon Correctional InstitutionCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2012
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.