Andre Marcus Bragg v. Warden Galaza
Andre Marcus BRAGG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden GALAZA, Respondent-Appellee
Opinion
ORDER This court’s opinion, filed March 12, 2001, is amended as follows:
1. On page 3110 of the slip, the first sentence of the second full paragraph reads:
Here, while Bragg appealed his conviction in the state court alleging that facts on the record established ineffective assistance of counsel, he never moved for an evidentiary hearing to resolve any factual ambiguities.
The foregoing sentence should be replaced with the following sentence:
Here, while Bragg appealed his conviction in the state court alleging that facts on the record established ineffective assistance of counsel, he never moved for an evidentiary hearing in the trial court to resolve any factual ambiguities.
2. On page 3111 of the slip, the last sentence before the Conclusion reads:
Despite concerns about gaps in the record, we hold that AEDPA in this case precludes us from remanding for an evi-dentiary hearing.
The foregoing sentence should be replaced with the following sentences:
Diligence would require at least one step or the other to develop the factual basis of his claim. Bragg made no such efforts. Despite concerns about gaps in the record, we hold that AEDPA in this case precludes us from remanding for an evidentiary hearing.
With these amendments, the petition for rehearing dated March 21, 2001, is DENIED.
It is so ORDERED.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 4 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(concluding that to show an actual conflict a petitioner must show that counsel actively represented conflicting interests)
-
(explaining that petitioner’s mere speculation 11 that a witness might have given helpful information is not enough to establish ineffective 12 assistance)
-
(evidentiary hearing precluded by AEDPA because petitioner failed to diligently pursue his claims in state court)
-
(“Without a showing of prejudice, a ‘theoretical’ or 23 ‘potential’ conflict is insufficient to constitute actual conflict; instead, [counsel] must have 24 actively represented conflicting interests.”)
Cited by 73 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.