Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Charles Hedlund v. Charles Ryan
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided March 4, 2016No. 09-99019Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWardlaw, Circuit Judge
I join Parts II, III, and VI of the majority opinion. The Arizona Supreme Court’s Eddings error requires us to grant the writ with respect to Hedlund’s sentence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). I have previously explained my disagreement with the majority’s disposition of Hedlund’s claims of unconstitutional shacMing during trial and ineffective assistance of counsel during the plea process and penalty phase. Hed-lund v. Ryan, 750 F.3d 793, 831-43 (9th Cir.2014) (Wardlaw, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). I see no need to do so again here.
The majority opinion correctly concludes that…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Woodford v. VisciottiSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- State v. RossArizona Supreme Court · 1994
- Eddings v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- James McKinney v. Charles RyanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
- Woodson v. North CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.