Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Gentry v. Sinclair, No. 09-99021 (8-28-12) (Clifton with Fisher and Paez).
In an appeal from a denial of a capital habeas, the 9th reverses the district court's finding that the IAC claim on failure to present mitigating evidence was procedurally defaulted. The claim was exhausted before the Washington supreme court and it was considered on its merits. However, after clearing that hurdle, the claim was denied because AEDPA deference, the state court's denial was not unreasonable. Moreover, the 9th denied the slew of other claims related to Brady and Napue disclosures on on jailhouse informants, ex post facto claims related to victim impact statements, jury instructions, and juror issues.

Stancle v. Clay, No. 09-056374 (8-28-12) (N. Smith with Nelson and O'Scannlain).
In tolling issues, the 9th holds that the petitioner was not entitled to a 44-day gap tolling between the denial of his first petition and the filing of a second petition, because the second petition was not an elaboration of facts arising from the first petition. The 9th also did not find equitable tolling, as petitioner's mental impairment did not make it impossible to meet the filing deadline.


Post a Comment

<< Home