Legal Opinion

Graham v. Portuondo

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided October 3, 2007No. Docket 04-1315-PRPublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Per curiam

Daryl Graham seeks permission to appeal from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition after an evidentiary hearing. Graham, who was pro se below, argues that the court’s failure to appoint him counsel at the hearing violated Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules Governing § 2254 petitions, which requires that counsel be appointed to indigent petitioners at such hearings. We agree and further find that the district court’s failure to appoint counsel to Graham was clear error. We therefore grant Graham’s motion for a certificate of appealability, vacate the judgment below,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Allen Hodge v. Police Officers: Colon, 623 and Repuerto, 145Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1986
  2. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sergio DUARTE-HIGAREDA, Defendant-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
  3. United States v. Paul Iasiello, Paul G. IasielloCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1999
  4. United States v. VasquezCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1993
  5. Paul H. Rauter v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1989

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Bucci v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2011
  2. Goldberg v. TracyDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2008
  3. Harrison v. SenkowskiDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2008
  4. Graham v. PortuondoDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2010
  5. Winslow v. PortuondoDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2009

7 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