Charles L. Lorraine v. Ralph Coyle, Warden

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that counsel’s failure to discover evidence of mental disease after pursuing false leads was not ineffective under Strickland
• holding that a procedurally defaulted cumulative error claim is not cognizable in habeas actions
• finding that the failure to attach documentation can arguing that Sowell needed to demonstrate cause and result in a procedural default
• stating that “[i]t would ... not be improper for us to decline review of these claims, since the state courts did not have the opportunity to address them”
• “[A]ssuming that the prosecutor did violate [an Ohio state discovery rule], such a claim is not cognizable on habeas, because it is not a constitutional violation.”
• noting that the “procedural rule has been routinely and regularly applied in the Ohio courts” and the failure to present sufficient documentary evidence in support of a post-conviction petition can result in a procedural default

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).