Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 653 F.3d 790 - Greenway v. Schriro

Greenway v. Schriro’s Empirical Analysis

653 F.3d 790 · 2011

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
June 2019
most recently cited

5 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Chapman v. State of California · Coleman v. Thompson · Ring v. Arizona · Lindh v. Murphy

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “On March 28, 1988, Pima County Sheriffs found a burned 1983 Porsche, which officials determined belonged to Frank and Lili Champagne, A deputy went to inform the Champagnes at their home and discovered the bodies of Lili Champagne and her daughter, Mindy Peters. Lili had been shot once behind the knee and once between the eyes. Mindy had been shot twice, once in the jaw and once behind the ear.... [Detectives picked up Greenway at his sister’s house, [and] Greenway told detectives that he had met a man named “Red” at a 7-Eleven convenience store, and that Red had given both Greenway and his co-defendant, Chris Lincoln, a ride in a white Porsche.... Lincoln confessed to stealing and burning the Porsche, and he implicated Greenway. During further questioning, Lincoln confessed to participating in the killings and again implicated Greenway. Greenway and Lincoln were ■ then both arrested and charged with several counts, including the murders of Lili and Mindy.... Further investigation revealed that Greenway had attempted to sell the victims’ car stereo to Brian Mize, Greenway’s co-worker. According ter Mize’s trial testimony, Greenway told Mize that Greenway went to the victims’ house and after taking “some stuff’ from the house, Greenway sent his co-defendant out and then shot the victims. ■”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Greenway filed his pro se preliminary petition for post-conviction relief under Rule 32 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure ("Rule 32 petition”) in state court in August 1992. Judge Scholl appointed counsel and ordered counsel to file an amended petition by February 1, 1993. Counsel then filed a short, untimely petition raising only one issue of ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing, and Greenway asked for a change of counsel Aat his attorney did not oppose. No further pleadings or proof were entered by counsel pending the change of counsel ruling. The trial judge, however, in January 1994, summarily denied the post-conviction petition in a minute order, wiA-out ruling on the request for change of counsel. The trial court subsequently granted Greenway's motion to proceed in propria persona and allowed him to file a motion for reconsideration.... [¶] The case was reassigned to a different judge in January 1996. Greenway Aen filed the motion with Ae trial court seeking reconsideration of its denial of his post-conviction petition.... [and] leave to amend....””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.