Appel v. Horn

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that even when § 2254(d) does not apply, § 2254(e) still applies such that a state court’s factual determinations are presumed correct
• concluding that even when § 2254(d) does not apply, § 2254(e) still applies such that a state court's factual determinations are presumed correct
• holding that continuing to serve as defendant’s counsel despite his protestations while failing to provide information or make arguments in defendant’s favor constituted a constructive denial of counsel
• ruling that state court's adjudication of one claim does not amount to adjudication of another claim triggering deferential review under § 2254(d), even if the claims have similar factual bases
• holding that in addressing a preserved issue in a federal habeas case not adjudicated by state courts, we “must conduct a de novo review over pure legal questions and mixed questions of law and fact”
• concluding that state court did not adjudicate petitioner’s claim of constructive denial of counsel by ruling that he had not received ineffective assistance of counsel, even though both arose out of counsel’s failure to investigate

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).