Anthony Ruffins v. the State of Texas

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that district court may consider procedural default sua sponte where petitioner has opportunity to respond
• concluding that counsel’s failure to challenge the witnesses’ identifications did not prejudice the petitioner because the identifications were sufficiently reliable even if the procedures used had been suggestive
• noting that an interested witness’s observation tends to be more reliable than that of a disinterested bystander
• indicating that habeas courts should not ordinarily raise procedural default sua sponte because, “a petitioner [may] be disadvantaged without having had an opportunity to respond.”
• observing that “the district court held an evidentiary hearing for the express purpose of assessing trial counsel’s shortcomings”
• explaining that counsel’s deficient performance may constitute cause for procedural default only if it is constitutionally ineffective under Strickland

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).