What is the effect of new substantive rules on state collateral review in federal habeas proceedings?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Padilla, 209 Cal.Rptr.3d 209, 4 Cal.App.5th 656 (Cal. App. 2016):
4 It was undisputed that the court's decision in Teague v. Lane (1989) 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 required the retroactive application of new substantive rules in federal habeas proceedings. Left open was the question whether states were required as a constitutional matter to give retroactive effect to new substantive rules on state collateral review. (Montgomery, supra, 136 S.Ct. at pp. 728729.)
4 It was undisputed that the court's decision in Teague v. Lane (1989) 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 required the retroactive application of new substantive rules in federal habeas proceedings. Left open was the question whether states were required as a constitutional matter to give retroactive effect to new substantive rules on state collateral review. (Montgomery, supra, 136 S.Ct. at pp. 728729.)
5 As appellant's victims share a surname, we refer to them by their first names.
5 As appellant's victims share a surname, we refer to them by their first names.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
