James Harmon, Iii, 080164 v. Tom L. Barton, Robert Butterworth

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 per curiam affirmance of the lower court’s ruling explicitly based on procedural default is a clear and express statement of its reliance on an independent and adequate state law ground barring federal review
• noting that a state appellate court's per curiam affirmance of the lower court's ruling explicitly based on procedural default is a clear and express statement of its reliance on an independent and adequate state law ground barring federal review
• noting that a state appellate court’s per curiam affirmance of the lower court’s ruling explicitly based on procedural default is a clear and express statement of its reliance on an independent and adequate state law ground barring federal review
• noting that a state appellate court’s per curiam affirmance of the lower court’s ruling explicitly based on a procedural default is a clear and express statement of its reliance on an independent and adequate state law ground barring federal review
• rejecting a petitioner’s claim that his pro se status constituted cause for a procedural default and noting that “[t]he factual and legal basis for a challenge . . . was plainly available to the petitioner at the time” he filed his state petition
• `We recognize that even representation by the most competent lawyer is no guarantee that all colorable issues will be raised.'

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).