No. 18-1107

Charles Chandler v. Vermont, et al.

Lower Court: Second Circuit
Docketed: 2019-02-25
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: circuit-split constitutional-challenge custody due-process fifth-circuit habeas-corpus ineffective-assistance lackawanna ninth-circuit strickland-standard tenth-circuit
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2019-03-29
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Is the Exception for Habeas Corpus Custody under Lackawanna valid law as affirmed by the Ninth, Tenth, and Fifth Circuits?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Is the Exception for Habeas Corpus Custody under Lackawanna valid law as affirmed by the Ninth, Tenth, and Fifth Circuits? 2. Has Petitioner satisfied the Lackawanna exception by showing that his legitimate Constitutional challenge was arbitrarily and unjustifiably dismissed by the Vermont Courts? 3. Where an attorney communicates to his client in the days before trial that he wishes the client will go to jail along with directing obscenities at him, and then proceeds to engage in bizarre and destructive actions during trial, does this constitute prejudice per se under Strickland, Cronic, and Nixon?

Docket Entries

2019-04-01
Petition DENIED.
2019-03-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/29/2019.
2019-03-07
Waiver of right of respondent State of Vermont to respond filed.
2018-09-21
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 27, 2019)

Attorneys

Charles Chandler
William David MaselliLaw Offices Of William Maselli, Petitioner
William David MaselliLaw Offices Of William Maselli, Petitioner
State of Vermont
Benjamin Daniel BattlesOffice of the Attorney General, Respondent
Benjamin Daniel BattlesOffice of the Attorney General, Respondent