LOCKHART, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION

v.

HILL

Citator

Cited By

• Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98 (U.S. 2010)
  …r that constitutes a break in Miranda custody. We have never decided whether incarceration constitutes custody for Miranda purposes, and have indeed explicitly declined to address the issue. See Perkins, 496 U. S., at 299. See also Bradley v. Ohio, 497 U. S. 1011, 1013 (1990) (Marshall, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari). Whether it does depends upon whether it exerts the coercive pressure that Miranda was designed to guard against — the “danger of coercion [that] results from the interaction of custo…
• Rogers v. United States, 990 F.2d 1008 (8th Cir. 1993)
  …1985); but see Hill v. Lockhart, 894 F. 2d 1009, 1010 (8th Cir.) (en banc) (attorney’s failure to correctly inform client about parole eligibility can amount to constitutional violation if it directly affects decision to plead guilty), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1011, 110 S.Ct. 3258, 111 L.Ed.2d 767 (1990). Rogers did not allege in his motion or in other pleadings before the district court that he would not have pleaded guilty if the trial court or his attorney had correctly informed him regarding parole eligi…
• Callins v. Collins, 998 F.2d 269 (5th Cir. 1993)
  …a habeas petition and application for stay of execution in federal court. The district court granted a stay of execution on June 12, 1990. On June 25, 1990, the Supreme Court denied Callins’s petition for [*273] writ of certiorari. Callins v. Texas, 497 U.S. 1011, 110 S.Ct. 3256, 111 L.Ed.2d 766 (1990). The magistrate judge issued findings of fact and conclusions of law on January 6, 1992, recommending that Callins- be granted an evidentiary hearing on a number of issues in order to create an adequate recor…