Charles Anderson Miller v. Daniel B. Vasquez, Warden

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that whether assault with deadly weapon was serious felony under state enhancement statute was state law question not cognizable on federal habeas review
• ruling that the bad faith requirement for preservation claims applies a fortiori to collection claims
• holding that a question of whether a prior conviction qualifies for sentence enhancement under California law is not a cognizable federal habeas corpus 5] claim
• concluding that whether assault with deadly weapon was serious felony under state enhancement statute was state law question not cognizable on federal habeas review
• holding that California state enhancement provisions involve questions 28 of state law not subject to federal habeas corpus review
• ruling that the bad faith requirement for preservation claims applies a fortiori to collection claims

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).