Legal Opinion
Patrico Ramonez v. Mary Berghuis
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided June 18, 2007No. 06-1852PublishedCited by 66 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SHADUR, District Judge.
Patrico Ramonez (“Ramonez”) appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus naming his custodian, Mary Berghuis (“Berghuis”), as respondent. Ramonez is in custody pursuant to a conviction in Michigan state court. As he did on direct appeal, Ramonez argues that his trial counsel W. Frederick Moore (“Moore”) failed to investigate and call at trial three witnesses to the alleged crime, Charles Tames (“Charles”), Rene Tames (“Rene”) and Joel “Big Bun” Hack-ett (“Hackett”). Ramonez asserts that Moore’s performance was thus…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Williams v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Wiggins v. Smith, WardenSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
- Carmell v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Ronald Dean Combs v. Ralph CoyleCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2000
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by66 opinions
- Davis v. LaflerCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2011
- Keith Smith v. Noah NagyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2020
- Rebecca Shimel v. Millicent WarrenCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2016
- Foxworth v. St. AmandCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2009
- English v. RomanowskiCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2010
61 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.