Woods v. Poole

Second Circuit

Woods v. Poole

156 F. App'x 345

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 15, 2005

DocketNo. 05-1587

StatusPublished

This text of 156 F. App'x 345 (Woods v. Poole) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Woods v. Poole, 156 F. App'x 345 (2d Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner-Appellant Thomas Woods appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (David G. Trager, Judge) denying his application for a writ of habeas corpus. Woods claims that his sentence as a persistent felony offender was unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). The district court dismissed the petition after finding that Woods had failed to exhaust his Apprendi claim. Familiarity with facts, procedural history and issues is presumed.

The government concedes that Woods exhausted his claim in state court, noting that “this claim was fairly presented to the state courts, and therefore was exhausted.” Viewing the record as a whole, we agree with both parties that petitioner’s claim has been exhausted. Therefore, we vacate and remand so that the district court may consider the claim. We express no views on the merits of this claim.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner-Appellant Thomas Woods appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (David G. Trager, Judge) denying his application for a writ of habeas corpus. Woods claims that his sentence as a persistent felony offender was unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). The district court dismissed the petition after finding that Woods had failed to exhaust his Apprendi claim. Familiarity with facts, procedural history and issues is presumed.

The government concedes that Woods exhausted his claim in state court, noting that “this claim was fairly presented to the state courts, and therefore was exhausted.” Viewing the record as a whole, we agree with both parties that petitioner’s claim has been exhausted. Therefore, we vacate and remand so that the district court may consider the claim. We express no views on the merits of this claim.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 F. App'x 345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woods-v-poole-ca2-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack