Lloyd Leslie Kindred v. T. Cisneros, Warden
SocialSecurity Securities
Brawnds(f), tas J deated the 6TH mend ment oF Heo VU, Lornctidubion: Ke oarebing Lown sed s Pray Mianee. Wa ad teas onobhy et&ti ve"and Hrat Here /5 a. yeasonadle. Probability that Far Counsel dere lictions, He 1uteome Wauld hase Leer oa. alifFerent autcome. Because J am. Sin bent x $e., Hickland v. Lla.si ng Fan / 984), H Sees SAE A fog a ENC palety Eu dene Letter from v9 Frances 0. Huey, State bar E ISIE . bone KOM) IL5 45 7/ Cel# Wb 5-506. Excifoatiry document Signed by Aforiiey at Lau Miss Dance! t A he. Praving my A rounds) C/éim TAC... Keversa/ Should be Pwarranted.. . . w+ See.. Yeoah v. Lope. eaale v, Frierson 979., Pesphv. Lat had 1980)... XA cb fornia. Anat lade 418 OGG 'Regarding Credible evidence. , . Ldarranting Reliek Fram The. Convictns... Review is Warrattea ». *O pny wil Als the term af sébyrs, a Cruel dnd Un usted, unssh ment Under Senple v. Kindred Case Fa tors: Revie) ease factors) B87). mend ment pt bh bits Fhe nti chion oF a Cruces pynishinent See Teshinsm % "0 ah/Fathia, $90, iS. 060-470 76) Te Li of} Amendment Iuits Crimined punishments hf usays Which has It heer Doneidered Sh Pees tons or tI) | Lypoges Substantive r" o What Aan be 'made Bimnal and pidished 2 suth PA) » St prohs bits bertain Krnds of i wnshaents HB) Sf Prohibits $ pitti shiments Ike sn Feoph ve Kind red's Case sf ey ars 1 DS gro ssly NSD r5 pardon e 46 the Severity oF the of fens .-Reyotsa! nthe Lrterest af Justice Should' be Warralted... %*oe,, Assembly bill 518 in bbhdlunttion Fo Penal bode b54.s ; Katee' (®, Anact" or' a mission that Ss" D unishable. under esthet d vee ool ff FOI ANS, Aut inn" base Shall She det a a0usssan 2 ry ed hinder more Bhan. one dpsyiven. An Lb4, witel or Colvrcdtion a} L 4. pra Yon for the Same." det bentente whaler any she ars a. plas ON eT pe cen il hake br omission under any other. "KeLef Should Be gi applicable ih the ibttrest DF hu.stite
Whether the 6th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was violated by the state court's finding that the petitioner's trial counsel was reasonably effective, despite evidence of counsel's deficiencies that likely affected the outcome