Arthur Donnell Miller, Jr. v. Ron Champion

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the “presumption of correctness does not apply ... if the habeas petitioner did not receive a full, fair and adequate hearing in the state court proceeding on the matter sought to be raised in the habeas petition”
• concluding that defendant’s plea was involuntary when “[t]he court never inquired of [defendant] whether he understood the elements of the crime to which he was pleading guilty, nor did it ask [him] whether his attorney had explained these elements to him”
• observing that “courts have concluded” in some cases “that the indictment or information supplied the defendant with the necessary notice of the elements of the crimes to which [the defendant] pleaded guilty”
• noting there are serious reasons to doubt this presumption applies in the absence of a factual basis for it and refusing to apply it under the particular facts of the case
• remanding a § 2254 petition for an evidentiary hearing to develop the factual record
• declining to presume that defense counsel explained the intent element of second-degree murder where the district court did not ask the defendant whether his lawyer had explained the elements to him or whether he understood the elements of the offense

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).