Anguiano-Morfin v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a habeas ground that was only mentioned in a footnote on direct appeal was not exhausted and thus procedurally defaulted for the purposes of federal habeas review
• holding ineffective-assistance claim was procedurally barred where the petitioner was represented by different counsel on direct appeal and could have requested a limited remand in that proceeding
• concluding ineffective assistance 6 of trial counsel claim was procedurally barred where petitioner could have requested a limited remand under Rule 3.11 to develop the facts on direct appeal
• upholding on habeas review the finding of the heinous, atrocious or cruel aggravator on these facts
• upholding on habeas review the finding of the heinous, atrocious or cruel aggravator on these facts
• assuming the same “because family and social history is one of the crucial areas of investigation emphasized in the ABA Guidelines”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).