Premo v. Moore
Premo v. Moore | |
---|---|
Holding | |
Ninth Circuit erred in finding that the state-court decision was an unreasonable application of either part of the Strickland rule. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Kennedy, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor |
Concurrence | Ginsburg (in judgment) |
Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amends. V, VI |
Premo v. Moore, 562 U.S. 115 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the right of individuals to federal habeas corpus relief on state-law claims. In a unanimous ruling, the court held that habeas relief may not be granted with respect to any claim that a state-court has found on the merits unless the state-court decision denying relief involves an "unreasonable application" of "clearly established federal law, as determined by" the Court.[1]
Background
Respondent Moore and two accomplices attacked a man, tied him up, and threw him in the trunk of a car before driving into the
Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the state court's conclusion was an unreasonable application of clearly established law in light of Strickland and was contrary to Arizona v. Fulminante
(1991).
See also
References
- ^ "Premo V. Moore". Law.cornell.edu. Retrieved May 9, 2022.
Further reading
- Burns, Amy Knight (2011). "Insurmountable Obstacles: Structural Errors, Procedural Default, and Ineffective Assistance". SSRN 1848068.
- Marceau, Justin F. (2012), "Challenging the Habeas Process Rather than the Result", Washington and Lee Law Review, 69, SSRN 1956629
External links
- Text of Premo v. Moore, 562 U.S. 115 (2011) is available from: Cornell CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion) (archived)