Texas Habeas Corpus Cases
- BRODEN & MICKELSEN was appointed to represent a person sentenced to death in state habeas corpus proceedings. The firm succeeded in convincing the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals that the police withheld evidence in the case and, as a result, the death sentence was vacated.
- Client was convicted in Fannin County, Texas with aggravated kidnapping and sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment. BRODEN & MICKELSEN was retained to file a post-conviction Writ of Habeas Corpus which the Court of Criminal Appeals granted based on the ineffective assistance of client’s attorney at trial. Client’s conviction was vacated. (March 2014)
- Our law firm represented a juvenile client pro bono for approximately six years. The Texas Supreme Court considered what appears to its first habeas corpus case related to a juvenile case. Normally habeas cases are considered by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals but, because this was a juvenile case, it is considered civil in nature. Texas Supreme Court granted the client habeas relief and found that the state presented false evidence at the client’s sentencing (disposition) hearing. (May 2012)
- A defendant was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment in state court for sexual assault of a minor. After going through several lawyers, the client hired BRODEN & MICKELSEN to file an “11.07 post-conviction writ” for him. As a result, in 2007, the client’s sentence was reduced to 10 years imprisonment based upon the argument that the client received ineffective assistance of counsel from his original lawyer.
- The client was sentenced to prison in state court and hired BRODEN & MICKELSEN to represent him in a post-conviction petition. The client prevailed based upon the argument that his prior counsel was ineffective for informing him that he was eligible for boot camp and/or shock probation when, in fact, he was not.
Federal Habeas Corpus Cases
- Our attorneys represented a client who had been sentenced in state court to 70 years imprisonment for robbery. In a post-conviction proceeding in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 22554 (a “2254 motion”), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the client’s conviction after finding Dallas County prosecutors improperly struck two African-Americans from the jury that heard his case.
- In a federal habeas corpus proceeding, BRODEN & MICKELSEN convinced the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that the client’s prior lawyer was ineffective for failing to pursue certain sentencing guideline arguments and, as a result, the client received a sentence reduction of five years. Read a news story about this case
- The client was represented by Clint Broden in a “2254 post-conviction proceeding” in federal court after he was convicted in state court. The state conviction was vacated after the federal court held that the state trial was unfair.
- A client was convicted in a drug case in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana and also appealed his sentence. Later he hired BRODEN & MICKELSEN to review his case to determine if he received ineffective assistance of counsel from his trial or appellate attorney. Clint Broden discovered that the trial attorney and the appellate attorney completely missed an issue which would have established the client was not guilty of the offense for which he was convicted. After BRODEN & MICKELSEN filed a 2255 motion for the client, his conviction was vacated and his prior attorneys were found to have been ineffective.
- The client was granted a new appeal in federal court after Clint Broden was able to prove that his former lawyer actually committed perjury and backdated documents that she had sent to the client.
- The client was represented in federal court in a probation revocation hearing and received a sentence of five years imprisonment. In a “2255 post-conviction proceeding,” Broden and Mickelsen convinced the Court that she received ineffective assistance of trial and she was immediately released from prison.
- The client was represented in federal court by a then prominent Dallas lawyer. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to prison but his lawyer forgot to preserve his right to appeal his suppression motion. The client was represented by Clint Broden in a “2255 post-conviction” proceeding and was allowed to withdraw his plea.