izmir escort izmir escort antalya escort porno jigolo izmir escort bursa escort instagram hesap kapatma backlink satışı havalandırma sistemleri porno izle instagram takipçi satın al saha betonu leadersmm.com facebook sayfa beğeni satın al alsancak escort eskişehir escort bayan Brad Keith Sigmon - South Carolina Death Row
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31

Thread: Brad Keith Sigmon - South Carolina Death Row

  1. #1
    Guest
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,533

    Brad Keith Sigmon - South Carolina Death Row




    Summary of Offense:

    Sigmon entered the dwelling of the two victims, David Larke and Gladys Larke, without consent and with intent to commit a crime. While in the dwelling, Sigmon unlawfully killed the victims with malice aforethought by repeatedly striking them in their heads with a baseball bat.

    Sigmon was sentenced to death in Greenville County on July 21, 2002.

  2. #2
    Administrator Moh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    12,579
    On December 19, 2005, Sigmon's death sentence was affirmed by the South Carolina Supreme Court on direct appeal.

    http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opin...s/SC/26087.htm

    On June 26, 2006, the US Supreme Court denied Sigmon's certiorari petition.

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.a...s/05-10465.htm

  3. #3
    Junior Member Stranger
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Charleston, South Carolina
    Posts
    1
    Any updates on his case?

  4. #4
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,128
    Sigmon v. South Carolina

    Opinion Date: March 20, 2013

    Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

    A jury convicted defendant Brad Sigmon of two counts of murder and burglary in the first degree, and it subsequently sentenced him to death. His convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. Upon review of his application for post-conviction relief (PCR), the Supreme Court found that defendant did not present evidence that he was afforded ineffective assistance of counsel. In light of this conclusion, it was not necessary for the Court to reach the second prong of prejudice in analyzing Defendant's entitlement to PCR. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the PCR court's dismissal of defendant's application for post-conviction relief.
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

    "Y'all be makin shit up" ~ Markeith Loyd

  5. #5
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,128
    Sigmon v. South Carolina

    Opinion Date: May 8, 2013

    Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

    The petition for rehearing is denied. The opinion is, however, substituted for the opinion previously filed in this matter.

    A jury convicted Brad Keith Sigmon of two counts of murder and burglary in the first degree, and it subsequently sentenced him to death. His convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the circuit court's dismissal of Sigmon's application for post-conviction relief (PCR). Sigmon contended he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that Sigmon did not present evidence that trial counsel was deficient. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the PCR court's dismissal of Sigmon's application for post-conviction relief.
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

    "Y'all be makin shit up" ~ Markeith Loyd

  6. #6
    Administrator Moh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    12,579
    On May 10, 2013, Sigmon filed a habeas petition in Federal District Court.

    http://dockets.justia.com/docket/sou...v01399/200332/

  7. #7
    Administrator Jan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,224
    In today's United States Supreme Court orders, Sigmon's petition for writ of certiorari was DENIED.

    Lower Ct: Supreme Court of South Carolina
    Case Nos.: (27233)
    Decision Date: May 8, 2013

  8. #8
    Administrator Moh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    12,579
    On September 30, 2018, Sigmon's habeas petition was DENIED in Federal District Court.

    https://docs.justia.com/cases/federa...399/200332/234

    On October 30, 2019, oral argument will be heard in Sigmon's appeal before the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

    http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/cal/inte...t292019ric.pdf

  9. #9
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,128
    Sigmon v. Sterling

    Findings of South Carolina post-conviction court were reasonable and entitled to deference in federal habeas proceedings, and petitioner failed to establish cause to excuse procedural default on new claims; death sentence affirmed

    (April 14, 2020; amended April 15, 2020). The petitioner was tried for murder and burglary in South Carolina state court and sentenced to death. The state appellate court affirmed on direct appeal, and state post-conviction proceedings were denied after hearing. That decision was affirmed by the state supreme court and the petitioner sought habeas relief in federal court. His petition included the same six claims adjudicated by the state post-conviction court, as well as (ultimately) four new claims not raised in state court. The district court granted summary judgment on all ten claims and the petitioner appealed. The Fourth Circuit granted a certificate of appealability on all the state claims and three of the new claims. In a divided opinion, the Fourth Circuit affirmed.

    As to the preserved claims (those adjudicated on the merits in state post-conviction), the petitioner must show that the state court decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law or if the decision was based on an unreasonable determination of facts” to obtain relief. 28 U.S.C. 2254(d). Five of these claims asserted ineffective assistance of counsel (“IAC”) during the penalty phase, and one claim asserted a due process and equal protection claim for alleged error in the state post-conviction proceedings. None of the South Carolina Supreme Court’s determinations as to the IAC claims involved an unreasonable application of established law or an unreasonable determination of facts, and the petitioner was therefore not entitled to relief under 2254. As to the due process and equal protection claim, “claims of error occurring in a state post-conviction proceeding cannot serve as the basis for federal habeas corpus relief” under circuit precedent, and this claim too was denied. See Bryant v. Maryland, 848 F.2d 492 (4th Cir. 1988).

    As to the new claims, they would normally be procedurally defaulted. However, under Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012), where state law requires IAC claims to be brought in state post-conviction rather than on direct appeal (as South Carolina law provides), a “substantial” IAC claim may be excused where the petitioner had no counsel or where post-conviction counsel was ineffective by defaulting the claim. A substantial claim is one with “some merit.” Sigmon Slip op. at 21 (citation omitted). A majority of the Fourth Circuit found that none of these claims were substantial, and the district court did not err in declining to hold an evidentiary hearing.

    Judge King dissented. He found trial counsel’s mitigation case at the penalty phase “feeble” and would have held that the petitioner was entitled to a hearing under Martinez.

    https://marymosley.wordpress.com/202...ls-april-2020/
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

    "Y'all be makin shit up" ~ Markeith Loyd

  10. #10
    Administrator Moh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    12,579
    The panel was made up of Judges Niemeyer (G.H.W. Bush) and Wynn (Obama) in the majority, while Judge King (Clinton) wrote in dissent.

    http://isysweb.ca4.uscourts.gov/isys...07939b8/2/doc/

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •