Edward Howard v. William D. O'sullivan, 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 a footnote reference that presented neither the legal nor factual basis of the petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel was not sufficient to preserve it for habeas review
• holding that the petitioner had not fairly presented his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel to the state court, even though he argued in state court that his postconviction counsel had been ineffective on the same grounds
• maintaining that “[t]his means that the error must have produced a significant likelihood that an innocent person has been convicted,” and that “because of this high standard, evi-dentiary questions are generally not subject to review in habeas corpus proceedings”
• claim of ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel for failing to raise issue of trial counsel ineffectiveness presents a different legal theory than the claim of trial counsel ineffectiveness itself
• a constitutional claim presented to the state courts only as part of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim does not satisfy § 2254(b)’s exhaustion requirement for the underlying constitutional claim
• a constitutional claim presented to the state courts only as part of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim does not satisfy § 2254(b)’s exhaustion requirement for the underlying constitutional claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).