Hood v. Secretary for the Department of Corrections
228 F. App'x 926
Opinion
For the reasons that we discussed with counsel at oral argument, we are convinced that no part of the petitioner’s ineffective assistance claim is unexhausted or proeedurally barred, and the district court did not err in finding that the state court’s determination regarding the prejudice prong was an unreasonable application of the principles set out in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hood v. Secretary for the Department of Corrections, 228 F. App'x 926 (11th Cir. 2007).
228 F. App'x 926 (Hood v. Secretary for the Department of Corrections) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court, 1984)