No. 18-1198

Westley A. Albright v. Tennessee

Lower Court: Tennessee
Docketed: 2019-03-14
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2)
Tags: criminal-defendant criminal-procedure diversion due-process fourteenth-amendment fourth-amendment nolo-contendere plea-bargaining sentencing
Key Terms:
DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2019-06-20 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Supreme Court of Tennessee erred when it held, as a matter of first impression, that due process rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments are not violated by a trial court's failure to provide actual notice to a criminal defendant that his subsequent admission of criminal intent to a treatment instructor will be a mandatory condition of his diversion following the entry of a nolo contendere plea

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether the Supreme Court of Tennessee erred when it held, as a matter of first impression, that due process rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments are not violated by a trial court’s failure to provide actual notice to a criminal defendant that his subsequent admission of criminal intent to a treatment instructor will be a mandatory condition of his diversion following the entry of a nolo contendere plea?

Docket Entries

2019-06-24
Petition DENIED.
2019-06-04
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/20/2019.
2019-05-20
Brief of respondent State of Tennessee in opposition filed.
2019-04-18
Response Requested. (Due May 20, 2019)
2019-04-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/26/2019.
2019-03-21
Waiver of right of respondent State of Tennessee to respond filed.
2019-03-11
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 15, 2019)

Attorneys

State of Tennessee
Jonathan David ShaubOffice of the Tennessee Attorney General, Respondent
Jonathan David ShaubOffice of the Tennessee Attorney General, Respondent
Westley Albright
Timothy Valton PotterReynolds, Potter, Ragan & Vandivort, PLC, Petitioner
Timothy Valton PotterReynolds, Potter, Ragan & Vandivort, PLC, Petitioner