Legal Opinion
Matthew Sexton v. Mike Cozner
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided May 13, 2012No. 10-35055PublishedCited by 72 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
The opinion filed on May 13, 2012, is AMENDED as follows: The phrase “and Sexton does not present a substantial claim that PCR counsel was ineffective” on page 17 of the opinion is replaced with “and Sexton does not present a substantial claim that trial counsel was ineffective.”.
An amended opinion will be filed concurrently with this order.
OPINION
TALLMAN, Circuit Judge:
Matthew Ryan Sexton (“Sexton” or “Petitioner”), an Oregon state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. He argues that trial counsel’s advice regarding his guilty plea…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Miller-El v. CockrellSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
- Coleman v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Hill v. LockhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Martinez v. RyanSupreme Court of the United States · 2012
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by72 opinions
- Robert Murray v. Dora SchriroCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
- Dwayne Woods v. Stephen SinclairCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
- Scott Clabourne v. Charles RyanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
- David Ramirez v. Charles RyanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019
- Dentrell Brown v. Richard BrownCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2017
67 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.