James H. Hinkle, Petitioner-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Michael Randle, Warden, Respondent-Appellant/cross-Appellee

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 state appellate court’s review of a claim for plain error is considered enforcement of a procedural default rule
• noting that the Sixth Circuit treats “a state appellate court’s review for plain error as the enforcement of a procedural default”
• characterizing plain error review as the enforcement of a procedural default
• “Ohio’s contemporaneous objection rule constitutes an adequate and independent state ground that bars federal habeas review absent a showing of cause and prejudice”
• “[W]e view a state appellate court’s review for plain error as the enforcement of a procedural default.”
• “[W]e view a state appellate court’s review for plain error as the enforcement of a procedural default.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).