COLLINS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION

v.

HOLLAND

Citator

Cited By

• Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000)
  …tional law to fact). See, e. g., Miller v. Fenton, 474 U. S. 104, 112 (1985). In other words, a federal habeas court owed no deference to a state court’s resolution of such questions of law or mixed questions. In 1991, in the case of Wright v. West, 502 U. S. 1021, we revisited our prior holdings by asking the parties to address the following question in their briefs: “In determining whether to grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court, should…
• Wright v. West, 505 U.S. 277 (U.S. 1992)
  …orrectly in this case. We granted certiorari, 502 U. S. 1012 (1991), and requested additional briefing on the question whether a federal habeas court should afford deference to state-court determinations applying law to the specific facts of a case, 502 U. S. 1021 (1991). We now reverse. [*285] II The habeas corpus statute permits a federal court to entertain a petition from a state prisoner “only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”…