Citation network
Coleman Vs. Thompson
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 24, 1991
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 722 (1991) U.S. Supreme Court Coleman v. ThompsonSearch
-
U.S. 722 (1991) Coleman v. ThompsonSearch
-
state habeas was based on a procedural default, such that the federal courts could not treat it as such under Harris v. ReedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Page 501 U. S. 723 question and adequate to support the prisoner's continued custody. See, e.g., Wainwright v. SykesSearch
-
doing so would not abridge one of his federal constitutional rights, such that federal review is permissible under Ake v. OklahomaSearch
-
the Virginia court relied on an independent state procedural ground. Moreover, it is clear that the rule of Tharp v. CommonwealthSearch
-
applied here, where it was Coleman's notice of appeal in the trial court that was late. And, although in O'Brien v. SoconySearch
-
demonstrate that failure to consider the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Cf., e.g., Murray v. CarrierSearch
-
standard set forth in Fay v. NoiaSearch
-
and the significant harm to the States that results from the failure of federal courts to respect them. Cf. McCleskey v. ZantSearch
-
Because there is no constitutional right to an attorney in state postconviction proceedings, see, e.g., Pennsylvania v. FinleySearch
-
a petitioner cannot claim constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel in such proceedings, see Wainwright v. TornaSearch
-
imposed the death sentence, and the Virginia Supreme Court affirmed both the convictions and the sentence. Coleman v. CommonwealthSearch
-
App. 25-26. This Court again denied certiorari. Coleman v. BassSearch
-
based on a procedural default, and therefore the federal courts could not treat it as such under the rule of Harris v. ReedSearch
-
law ground that is independent of the federal question and adequate to support the judgment. See, e.g., Fox Film Corp. v. MullerSearch
-
Klinger v. MissouriSearch
-
independent federal ground for the decision could not affect the judgment, and would therefore be advisory. See Herb v. PitcairnSearch
-
In these cases, the state judgment rests on independent and adequate state procedural grounds. See Wainwright v. SykesSearch
-
Ulster County Court v. AllenSearch
-
Ibid. The court does not review a judgment, but the lawfulness of the petitioner's custody simpliciter. See Fay v. NoiaSearch
-
state remedies as to any of his federal claims. See Ex parte Royall, 117 U. S. 241 (1886). See also Rose v. LundySearch
-
Again, it is unclear from such opinions whether the state law decision is independent of federal law. In Michigan v. LongSearch
-
Id. at 463 U. S. 1041 . In Caldwell v. MississippiSearch
-
decisions in the application of the independent and adequate state ground doctrine in a federal habeas case in Harris v. ReedSearch
-
Long, supra, at 463 U. S. 1038 , quoting Abie State Bank v. BryanSearch
-
Continental T.V., Inc. v. GTESearch
-
The Virginia Supreme Court has reiterated the unwaivable nature of this requirement. See School Bd. of Lynchburg v. ScottSearch
-
Vaughn v. VaughnSearch
-
Mears v. MearsSearch
-
procedural bar only after determining that doing so would not abridge one of Coleman's constitutional rights. In Ake v. OklahomaSearch
-
no good, because the Virginia Supreme Court relied on an independent state procedural rule. Coleman cites Tharp v. CommonwealthSearch
-
the petitioner has a constitutional right to have the appeal heard. This was the case, for example, in Cabaniss v. CunninghamSearch
-
request for appointed counsel on appeal, a request the court was required to honor under the Constitution. See Douglas v. CaliforniaSearch
-
for appeal in that case would have abridged Cabaniss' constitutional right to counsel on appeal. See also Thacker v. PeytonSearch
-
Stokes v. PeytonSearch
-
has recognized an exception to the time requirement for filing a notice of appeal. Coleman cites also O'Brien v. SoconySearch
-
accept the Court of Appeals conclusion that the bar was adequate. See 895 F.2d at 143. IV In Daniels v. AllenSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial