Source: http://therecord.flabarappellate.org/2014/05/what-state-criminal-practitioners-should-know-about-federal-habeas-corpus/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 22:22:45+00:00

Document:
Gray Proctor is a former law clerk for federal judges in the Southern District of Texas, the Eastern District of Virginia, and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. His Orlando, Florida practice focuses on criminal appeals, post-conviction review, clemency, and corrections issues. He sits on the advisory board of the Bloomberg BNA Criminal Law Reporter.
Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991).
See generally Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings in United States District Courts.
Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S. Ct. 641, 656 (2012); see also Clifton v. Sec’y, No. 6:10-cv-539, 2012 WL 3670264, at *5 n.3 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 27, 2012) (giving petitioner bene t of 90-day period for petitioning SCOTUS because PCA opinions are not appealable to the Florida Supreme Court).
See Sallie v. Humphrey, 789 F. Supp. 2d 1351, 1357-60 (M.D. Ga. 2011).
Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406, 418-21 (2007).
Dodd v. United States, 545 U.S. 353, 358 (2005).
Aron v. United States, 291 F.3d 708, 712 (11th Cir. 2002) (explaining that due diligence “does not require a prisoner to undertake repeated exercises in futility or to exhaust every imaginable option, but rather to make reasonable efforts”).
Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8 (2000); but see Drew v. Dep’t of Corr., 297 F.3d 1278, 1284 (11th Cir. 2002) (holding that a successive Rule 3.850 petition was “properly led”).
See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 278 (2005).
Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327 (2007).
Holland v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2549 (2010).
Downs v. McNeil, 520 F.3d 1311, 1323 (11th Cir. 2008).
McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S. Ct. 1924, 193334 (2013); see also House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (2006) (actual innocence standard).
For examples, see Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333 (1992) (applying identically phrased pre-AEDPA common-law standard) and progeny.
Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982).
Lee v. Kemna, 534 U.S. 362, 387 (2002).
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 753-54 (1991).
Edwards v. Carpenter, 529 U.S. 446 (2000).
Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309, 1320 (2012).
Johnson v. Williams, 133 S. Ct. 1088, 1096 (2013); see also Allen v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 611 F.3d 740, 748 (11th Cir. 2010).
Skipwith v. McNeil, No. 09-cv-60361, 2011WL 1598834, at *11 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 17, 2011) (citing Winston v. Kelly, 592 F.3d 535, 555-56 (4th Cir. 2010)).
Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388, 1398 (2011); see also Knowles v. Mizayance, 556 U.S. 111, 123 (2009) (discussing the “doubly deferential judicial review that applies to a Stricklandclaim evaluated under the § 2254(d) (1) standard”); Yarboroughv. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664 (2004) (discussing role of generality of rule in determining whether it was unreasonably applied).
Marshall v. Rodgers, 133 S. Ct. 1446, 145051 (2013).
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412 (2000).
Id. at 407; but see White v. Woodall, 134 S.Ct. 1697, 1705-07 (2014) (rejecting unreasonable failure to extend where court would have to extend reasoning of prior case as well.
Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376, 1390 (2012) (finding decision unreasonable where state court failed to apply Strickland to claim of ineffective assistance of counsel).
Adkins v. Warden, Holman Corr. Fac., 710 F.3d 1241, 1249 (11th Cir.), cert denied 134 S. Ct. 268 (Oct. 7, 2013).
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420, 432 (2000); see also Jefferson v. Upton, 560 U.S. 284, 288-10 (2010).
Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 313 (1963), overruled on different grounds by Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1 (1992).
Gonzalez v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 366 F.3d 1263, 1267 (11th Cir. 2004).
Rule 11(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.
Gonzalez, 366 F.3d at 1267.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2254
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.