Sturm v. Darnell

3 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Morris

    5:21-cr-014-DCR-MAS-1 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 27, 2021)

    statement was extracted is, of course, relevant to the purely legal question of its voluntariness . . . But the physical and psychological environment that yielded the confession can also be of substantial relevance to the ultimate factual issue of the defendant's guilt or innocence. Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 688-89 (1986) (citation omitted); accord Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477, 485-86 (1972); see also Sturm v. Darnell, No. 2:10-CV-00247, 2012 WL 220211, at *25-26 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 25, 2012), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:10-CV-00247, 2012 WL 604229 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 24, 2012), aff'd sub nom. Sturm v. Superintendent of Indian River Juv. Corr. Facility, 514 Fed.Appx. 618 (6th Cir. 2013).

  2. Smith v. Warden, S. Corr. Inst.

    Case No. 2:20-cv-1382 (S.D. Ohio Jun. 14, 2021)

    See Williams v. Mitchell, 792 F.3d 606. 613 (6th Cir. 2015) (holding that, to avoid a procedural default, petitioner must exhaust all state-court remedies by fairly presenting claim to the state court of appeals and state supreme court) (citations omitted); Sturm v. Darnell, No. 2:10-cv-00247, 2012 WL 220211, at *15 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 25, 2012) (citations omitted) (petitioner procedurally defaulted his claim of ineffective assistance by failing to raise it in the Ohio Supreme Court); Hemphill v. Hudson, No. 1:09-cv-009, 2009 WL 1107890, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 23, 2009) (petitioner procedurally defaulted claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel procedurally defaulted where he failed to raise it in the Ohio Supreme Court).

  3. Wycuff v. Haviland

    CASE NO. 2:19-CV-3549 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 3, 2020)   Cited 7 times

    For this additional reason, claim four must be dismissed. See Sturm v. Darnell, No. 2:10-cv-00247, 2012 WL 220211, at *15 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 25, 2012) (citations omitted) (enforcing procedural default under these circumstances). Petitioner may, however, still obtain review of claim four on the merits, if he establishes cause for his procedural defaults, as well as actual prejudice from the alleged constitutional violations.