Tompkins v. Hall
Annotate this CaseFollowing the grant of a petition for habeas corpus relief brought by defendant, the warden appealed, contending that the trial court erred in its finding that cause and prejudice had been shown to raise the procedural bar on defaulted claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court concluded that the habeas court erred by reaching defendant's claims of ineffective assistance at all because they had previously been waived. The habeas court then compounded this error by inserting its own additional grounds, namely lack of preparation of trial counsel. Moreover, even if defendant had properly presented a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, his habeas petition would still have to be denied under Strickland v. Washington. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment.
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.