Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Toby Joe Gutierrez v. Dan Moriarty, Warden, Attorney General of the State of New Mexico

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Decided January 7, 1991No. 88-1849Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partStephen H. Anderson, Circuit Judge

in part:

I concur in part II of the majority opinion, and in the result. However, I respectfully dissent with respect to the process by which the majority reaches that result. Procedural bar precludes consideration of Gutierrez’s speedy trial claim.

When the last state court of review clearly holds that a federal constitutional issue has been forfeited due to a violation of state procedural rules, and the finding rests on adequate and independent state law grounds, then such a finding of procedural default bars federal habeas review of the federal claim. See Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 109…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Barker v. WingoSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Harris v. ReedSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. Caldwell v. MississippiSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  4. Johnson v. MississippiSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  5. Dugger v. AdamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989

25 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