Question Presented (AI Summary)
When Martinez v. Ryan applies to a petitioner's initial federal habeas corpus proceeding, should the petitioner be entitled to application of Martinez to substantial, procedurally defaulted, claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. When Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) was decided during the pendency of a petitioner’s initial federal habeas corpus proceeding, is the petitioner entitled to application of Martinez by some court to substantial, procedurally defaulted, claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel? 2. Where the equitable rule of Martinez is intended to protect the right to federal habeas review of a substantial claim, does Martinez allow consideration of evidence that is essential to such a claim, where post-conviction counsel ineffectively failed to investigate or present such evidence in state court?
2018-12-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/4/2019.
2018-11-05
Brief of respondent Mays, Warden in opposition filed.
2018-10-17
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including November 8, 2018.
2018-10-11
Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 9, 2018 to November 8, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
2018-09-11
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including October 9, 2018.
2018-09-07
Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 7, 2018 to October 9, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
2018-08-06
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 7, 2018)
2018-05-30
Application (17A1321) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until August 6, 2018.
2018-05-25
Application (17A1321) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from June 7, 2018 to August 6, 2018, submitted to Justice Kagan.