Kevin Turner v. Christopher Artuz

How courts have described this case

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

• holding underlying claims to ineffective appellate counsel claim could not be exhausted through coram nobis petition
• explaining that an underlying state court error is not exhausted in such a situation because \[t]he constitutional deprivations alleged . . . could be advanced in a writ of error coram nobis only as predicates for the claim of ineffectiveness.\
• discussing the 1996 amendments to the habeas statute adding 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2) and stating that “[a] district therefore now has the option of denying mixed petitions on the merits”
• discussing the 1996 amendments to the habeas statute adding 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2) and stating that “[a] district therefore now has the option of denying mixed petitions on the merits”
• discussing the 1996 amendments to the habeas statute adding 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2) and stating that “[a] district therefore now has the option of denying mixed petitions on the merits”
• “The only constitutional claim Turner was permitted to raise in seeking a writ of error coram nobis was ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a claim that is distinct from claims (1) and (2

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).