Tavarez v. Larkin, No. 14-1934 (2d Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, convicted of first-degree manslaughter and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of fifteen years, to be followed by five years of supervised release, on the manslaughter and weapons convictions. The district court subsequently issued a certificate of appealability as to: (1) whether a State court decision denying an ineffective assistance of counsel claim can be contrary to, or an unreasonable application of the prejudice requirement in Strickland v. Washington, where petitioner received concurrent sentences, only one of which is the subject of the ineffective assistance claim; and (2) whether, when a State court has held that a claim is procedurally barred, and that the bar will not be excused by ineffective assistance of counsel, a federal habeas court should apply the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1), deference in considering whether that ineffective assistance of counsel claim can serve as cause and prejudice for excusing the procedural default. The court concluded that the state court’s rejection of petitioner’s ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Even assuming that petitioner can establish cause to excuse procedural default of his fair-trial and double-jeopardy claims, the underlying claims also fail under the extremely deferential AEDPA standard that applies to them. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.