Stevie Lamar FIELDS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Arthur CALDERON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that the trigger date is the date the default occurred, not the date the rule was applied by the state court
• holding that the question of whether a state procedural bar is clear, consistently applied, 20 and well-established is determined as of the time the purported default occurred, not when a state 21 court applied the bar to a claim
• explaining that “the proper time for determining whether a procedural rule was firmly established and regularly followed is the time of [the] purported default”
• noting that Dixon “had been obscured” by inconsistent application over the years
• analyzing the adequacy of a procedural bar by reviewing the relevant time period “at the time the 27 claim should have been raised”
• discussing the exceptions that have been developed by the California Supreme Court following Dixon and In re Harris, 855 P.2d 391, 398–407 (Cal. 1993)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).