Thomas Clyde Bowling, Jr. v. Phillip Parker, Warden

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “there must be unambiguous state-court reliance on a procedural default for it to block” this Court’s review
• finding that petitioner met burden of developing factual basis of claim imposed by section 2254(e)(2) where he “repeatedly sought an evidentiary hearing in state court”
• finding that Bowling failed to demonstrate how additional meetings would have affected the outcome of his trial
• finding trial counsel who only met with defendant for less than one hour had not rendered deficient performance because defendant did not show how additional consultation would have altered the trial’s outcome
• finding no constitutional error where the trial court seated a juror who “initially state[d] that he would automatically give the death penalty to those who met the aggravating factor” but “later . . . expressly said that he would consider mitigating evidence,” id. at 520
• “[T]here must be unambiguous state-court reliance on a procedural default for it to block our review.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).