Jabriel Linzy v. State of Tennessee

The Petitioners, Russell Lee Maze and Kaye M. Maze, seek post-conviction relief from their respective convictions related to their infant son's death in 2000 from abusive head trauma ("AHT"). The post-conviction court afforded the Petitioners an evidentiary hearing at which they presented purported "new scientific evidence" through various experts in an effort to establish their actual innocence. The State, through the Office of the District Attorney General for the Twentieth Judicial District ("District Attorney"), admitted the facts asserted by the Petitioners and agreed that the Petitioners were actually innocent of these offenses. Nonetheless, the post-conviction court determined that the Petitioners had failed to carry their burden of producing clear and convincing proof to establish their actual innocence, a determination which the Petitioners now challenge. On appeal, the State, through the Office of the Attorney General and Reporter ("Attorney General"), contends that the Petitioners failed to prove their actual innocence based on new scientific evidence, instead proffering only new opinions on previously presented evidence, which supports the post-conviction court's denial of relief. In addition to the underlying substantive merits of their actual innocence claims, the Petitioners also raise certain procedural issues: (1) whether review of Mr. Maze's appeal, which began as a motion to reopen his prior post-conviction petition, is permissive or an appeal as of right; (2) whether Mrs. Maze's petition for post-conviction relief, her first, is time-barred; (3) whether the State improperly changed its position on appeal in violation of due process, judicial estoppel, and waiver; (4) whether the post-conviction court's ruling infringed upon prosecutorial discretion and violated the party-presentation principle; (5) whether the post-conviction court erred by denying Mrs. Maze relief without independent review of her actual innocence claim; and (6) whether this cas

Criminal law—Ineffective assistance of counsel—When defense counsel fails to request that the trial court waive court costs on behalf of a defendant who has previously been found to be indigent, a determination of prejudice in an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel analysis depends on whether the facts and circumstances presented by the defendant establish that there is a reasonable probability that the trial court would have granted the request to waive court costs had one been made—Court of appeals' judgment reversed and cause remanded.

ASSAAD, 23 I&N Dec. 553 (BIA 2003) ID 3487 (PDF) (1) Case law of the United States Supreme Court holding, in the context of criminal proceedings, that there can be no deprivation of effective assistance of counsel where there is no constitutional right to counsel does not require withdrawal from Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), aff’d, 857 F.2d 10 (1st Cir. 1988), finding a right to assert a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in immigration proceedings, where the United States Courts of Appeals have recognized that a respondent has a Fifth Amendment due process right to a fair immigration hearing, which may be denied if counsel prevents the respondent from meaningfully presenting his or her case. (2) The respondent did not establish that his former counsel’s failure to file a timely appeal constituted sufficient prejudice to warrant consideration of his late appeal on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel.