Well that was quick.
The U.S. Supreme Court decided Martinez v. Ryan yesterday. See post here. A Texas murderer, Jesse Joe Hernandez, wants to invoke it in a successive petition in Texas state court, claiming his first collateral review lawyer was ineffective. Brandi Grissom has this story in the Texas Tribune.
No dice says Texas CCA. Doesn't meet the statutory criteria for a successive petition. A concurring opinion agrees that this is correct given Texas CCA's past interpretation of the statute but asks the Legislature to amend it.
Martinez is based on the U.S. Supreme Court's assessment of the equities. It is not constitutional law binding on states. State courts need not follow it for state proceedings. Where state statutes are contrary, they cannot.
The U.S. Supreme Court decided Martinez v. Ryan yesterday. See post here. A Texas murderer, Jesse Joe Hernandez, wants to invoke it in a successive petition in Texas state court, claiming his first collateral review lawyer was ineffective. Brandi Grissom has this story in the Texas Tribune.
No dice says Texas CCA. Doesn't meet the statutory criteria for a successive petition. A concurring opinion agrees that this is correct given Texas CCA's past interpretation of the statute but asks the Legislature to amend it.
Martinez is based on the U.S. Supreme Court's assessment of the equities. It is not constitutional law binding on states. State courts need not follow it for state proceedings. Where state statutes are contrary, they cannot.
Leave a comment