The New York Law Journal has a blurb today about an opinion in a "habeas" case that supposedly "eased the burden on defendant who want to challenge their lawyers' performance through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus."
I wanted to make a few comments about the article. In the first instance, the article's description of both the name and type of case is off. First, the paper inaccurately says that the name of the case is People v. Yick Man Mui. It's actually Yick Man Mui v. United States. That's a big difference. It changes it from a state criminal case to a federal criminal case. Which means that the "habeas" we are talking about is actually a motion to set aside the conviction under 28 USC 2255. So the case does nothing to clarify anything about petitions for a writ of habeas corpus. Sure, 2255's are sometimes referred to as "habeas" cases, but as I have previously explained, 2254 and 2255 cases only share a small amount in common.
The case really focuses more on question of federal procedure -- when and where can a federal criminal defendant raise an ineffectiveness claim.
The decision itself actually came out last week on July 30. And you can read it here.
Comments