Hudson v. Hunt, No. 99-7314
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and MOTZ; WILKINS |
| Citation | 235 F.3d 892 |
| Parties | (4th Cir. 2000) ANDREW MARK HUDSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J. R. HUNT; NORTH CAROLINA, Respondents-Appellees. . Argued: |
| Docket Number | No. 99-7314 |
| Decision Date | 02 November 2000 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
34 practice notes
-
Nickerson v. Roe, No. C 98-04909 MHP.
...Poole, 282 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir.2002) (reviewing de novo claim on which evidence had not been heard in state courts); Hudson v. Hunt, 235 F.3d 892, 895 (4th Cir.2000) (applying de novo review to claims which state court had dismissed on procedural grounds); Miller v. Johnson, 200 F.3d 2......
-
Richardson v. Kornegay, No. 18-6488
...procedural default, "we possess discretion to decline to consider the merits of a defaulted claim notwithstanding." Hudson v. Hunt , 235 F.3d 892, 895 n.1 (4th Cir. 2000). Given that the State recognized the procedural default and Richardson had the opportunity to address the exceptions to ......
-
Chaker v. Crogan, No. 03-56885.
...district court's decision de novo without the deference usually accorded state courts under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). See Hudson v. Hunt, 235 F.3d 892, 895 (4th Cir.2000) (applying de novo standard of review to a claim in a habeas petition that was not adjudicated on the merits by the state c......
-
Lenz v. Washington, No. 05-16.
...him effective assistance of counsel. Because there is no state court judgment on the merits, we review de novo. See, e.g., Hudson v. Hunt, 235 F.3d 892, 895 (4th Cir. Even so, petitioner's claim fails to allege circumstances that would constitute ineffective assistance of counsel under the ......
Request a trial to view additional results
34 cases
-
Nickerson v. Roe, No. C 98-04909 MHP.
...Poole, 282 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir.2002) (reviewing de novo claim on which evidence had not been heard in state courts); Hudson v. Hunt, 235 F.3d 892, 895 (4th Cir.2000) (applying de novo review to claims which state court had dismissed on procedural grounds); Miller v. Johnson, 200 F.3d 2......
-
Richardson v. Kornegay, No. 18-6488
...procedural default, "we possess discretion to decline to consider the merits of a defaulted claim notwithstanding." Hudson v. Hunt , 235 F.3d 892, 895 n.1 (4th Cir. 2000). Given that the State recognized the procedural default and Richardson had the opportunity to address the exceptions to ......
-
Chaker v. Crogan, No. 03-56885.
...district court's decision de novo without the deference usually accorded state courts under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). See Hudson v. Hunt, 235 F.3d 892, 895 (4th Cir.2000) (applying de novo standard of review to a claim in a habeas petition that was not adjudicated on the merits by the state c......
-
Lenz v. Washington, No. 05-16.
...him effective assistance of counsel. Because there is no state court judgment on the merits, we review de novo. See, e.g., Hudson v. Hunt, 235 F.3d 892, 895 (4th Cir. Even so, petitioner's claim fails to allege circumstances that would constitute ineffective assistance of counsel under the ......
Request a trial to view additional results