Russell v. Kelley, 5:16-cv-188-DPM. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20180815a10
Visitors: 13
Filed: Aug. 13, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 13, 2018
Summary: ORDER D.P. MARSHALL, JR. , District Judge . Motion, N o 34, denied. Nothing in Russell's new paper warrants relief from the Judgment. The Court will, however, add one further supplement to its 15 June 2018 Order: to the extent Russell claimed that his trial lawyer was ineffective for not preserving the sufficiency argument, that claim fails. N o 1-1 at 35-40. The Arkansas Supreme Court's resolution of that claim wasn't contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly es
Summary: ORDER D.P. MARSHALL, JR. , District Judge . Motion, N o 34, denied. Nothing in Russell's new paper warrants relief from the Judgment. The Court will, however, add one further supplement to its 15 June 2018 Order: to the extent Russell claimed that his trial lawyer was ineffective for not preserving the sufficiency argument, that claim fails. N o 1-1 at 35-40. The Arkansas Supreme Court's resolution of that claim wasn't contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly est..
More
ORDER
D.P. MARSHALL, JR., District Judge.
Motion, No 34, denied. Nothing in Russell's new paper warrants relief from the Judgment. The Court will, however, add one further supplement to its 15 June 2018 Order: to the extent Russell claimed that his trial lawyer was ineffective for not preserving the sufficiency argument, that claim fails. No 1-1 at 35-40. The Arkansas Supreme Court's resolution of that claim wasn't contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. No 11-6 at 8. And because reasonable jurists wouldn't disagree about that point, the claim doesn't warrant a certificate of appealability. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000).
So Ordered.
Source: Leagle
