Matthew Sexton v. Mike Cozner

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that remand to the district court was improper under Martinez because Sexton’s claim was not “substantial”
• concluding that remand to the district court was improper under Martinez because Sexton’s claim was not “substantial”
• holding that the attorney’s inaccurate sentencing prediction was not prejudicial where the petitioner stated to the court that he understood he could face a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment
• explaining that a defendant cannot establish that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness when the only disagreement concerned strategy
• noting that an IAC claim must be substantial to warrant a Martinez remand and that disagreement regarding strategy does not constitute ineffectiveness of counsel
• holding postconviction counsel could not have been ineffective for failing to raise ineffective assistance of counsel claims where trial counsel was not ineffective

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).