No. 18-5572

John E. Wells, Sr. v. David Gray, Warden

Lower Court: Sixth Circuit
Docketed: 2018-08-13
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: certificate-of-appealability constitutional-rights due-process equal-protection federal-habeas-corpus habeas-corpus illegal-sentence judicial-power jury-trial res-judicata state-court-record void-judgment
Key Terms:
DueProcess FifthAmendment HabeasCorpus Punishment JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2018-10-12
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does a Federal Court of Appeals deny Due Process by refusing to issue a Certificate of Appealability

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

Questions Presented QUESTION 1: Does a Federal Court of Appeals deny Due Process by refusing to issue ' a Certificate of Appealability where the Petitioner's claims exceed the minimal criteria set out in Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 487 (2000), where the Petitioner shows (1) he was indisputably deprived of his Due Process and Jury Trial rights by the State Trial Court, where, among other things, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced him based upon facts neither submitted to, nor found by the Jury in its Verdicts; and (2) where the Petitioner showed that, as a matter of the State Court record, the procedural bar, i.e., res judicata, was applied by the State Court of Appeals in the timely direct appeal of right from the resentencing hearing, after having previously rendered at least two separate judgments that show the Petitioner's prior Judgment was void and not subject to preclusion by application of res judicata? Question 2: Does a Petitioner show a violation of a Constitional right where his Claims, based upon the State Court record, shows that the State Trial/Sentencing Court exceeded its Judicial Power/Authority by exercising Judicial power not conferred by the Jury's Verdicts, and rendered judgment of conviction and imposed sentences that are greater than the maximum terms allowed by law solely on the basis of the facts found by the jury in its verdicts? Question 3: Where a State Trial/Sentencing Court exceeded its Judicial Power/Authority by exercising Judicial power not conferred by the Jury's Verdicts, and renders judgment of conviction and imposes sentences that are greater than the maximum terms allowed by law solely on the basis of the facts found by the jury in its verdicts, and otherwise enters judgment and/or a sentence not authorized by law, is that act void under the Federal Illegal Sentence and/or Voidness Doctrine(s)? QUESTION 4: Where a sentence, or portion thereof, is void, and a State Defendant is rersentenced to correct that void sentence; where the defendant raises objections to the correction and reimposition of that void sentence, and/or demands the remaining sentences or portions of sentences be vacated on the basis that essential elements required by law to support sentences were neither submitted to, nor found by, the jury in its verdicts, as well as other deficiencies that cause the judgment and sentence(s) to be void, does a State Court of Appeals deprive the Defendant of Federally protected Due Process, Access to Courts, etc., by application of res judicata to avoid ruling on the merits in a timely appeal of right from the resentencing hearing? QUESTION 5: Where a State Petitioner is resentenced in a State Gourt, exhausts his ~~ State Appellate process to the State's highest Court, and thereby, satisfies Federal law's requirements for resetting the "second/successive count", as well as the AEDPA's exhaustion requirements; and where the State Petitioner files his Habeas . Corpus Petition including one or more Claim(s) that the State COurt of Appeals’: application res judicata was done in violation of the State Petitioner's Federally : protected Constitutional rights, does a Federal Circuit Court deprive Due Process : by dismissing a timely Habeas Corpus Petition, and refusing to issue a Certificate of Appealability, and does a Federal Court of Appeals deprive Due Process by refusing to issue a Certificate of Appealability, based upon the State imposed procedural bar, where the State violation(s). of Federally protected Constitional rights set ' out in other Claims are so plainly apparent on the face of the State Court record that they are beyond to argument or debate, without first analyzing whether the State Court application of res judicata was improper, and without providing a writen opinion supporting the application of res judicata? In other words, where a State Petitioner's Habeas Petition is blocked by a State imposed procedural bar, and the Petition raises that application as a clai

Docket Entries

2018-10-15
Petition DENIED.
2018-09-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/12/2018.
2018-07-27
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 12, 2018)

Attorneys

John E. Wells
John E. Wells Sr. — Petitioner
John E. Wells Sr. — Petitioner