Matthew Sexton v. Mike Cozner

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Matthew Sexton v. Mike Cozner. Read the opinion of the Court — 679 F.3d 1150
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided May 14, 2012·No. 10-35055·Published

Opinion

FILED FOR PUBLICATION MAY 14 2012 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MATTHEW RYAN SEXTON, No. 10-35055

Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:06-cv-00209-AC District of Oregon, v. Portland

MIKE COZNER, Superintendent, MacLaren Youth Correctional Facility, ORDER

Respondent - Appellee.

Before: TASHIMA, TALLMAN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

The opinion filed on May 13, 2012, is AMENDED as follows: The phrase

“and Sexton does not present a substantial claim that PCR counsel was ineffective”

on page 17 of the opinion is replaced with “and Sexton does not present a

substantial claim that trial counsel was ineffective.”.

An amended opinion will be filed concurrently with this order.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Matthew Sexton v. Mike Cozner, (9th Cir. 2012).

Matthew Sexton v. Mike Cozner (Matthew Sexton v. Mike Cozner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.