No. 18-5744

Arthur Lawton Clark v. Walter Berry, Warden, et al.

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2018-08-24
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 14th-amendment constitutional-violation due-process guilty-plea habeas habeas-corpus indictment indictment-insufficiency ineffective-assistance procedural-bar procedural-default
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference: 2018-09-24
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether petitioner's indictment and guilty plea were constitutionally deficient, and whether the lower courts erred in denying his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and procedural default

Question Presented (from Petition)

No question identified. : \ £ Dvestions a ee ls Det; nner has shown, not aly hi (sMudictmeut, hu / CUT DL Sq ty plea are Noth €, de CE.4 obvlou 5.4 SING CSSEU— fom hich they are derived. These taissing elements are a 14 Amendment constitvtjonal violetoy of the de Oro cess clay e. how ine in svfficlency , and the [QWeydistrret federal Courts Fave avoided recog I3ing A | Comparison of said indrfment or plea be the felony _ | Ss feetute, Cases from the IS, Supreme Court, other~ ___ Anges ourts and jhe State \ypreme CoursNave &@ | at these elements b inclement gre here SSaby fer ith he _siffitlent constitutionally, dif m2223) @ ‘ot Courts and the WH Cir. Cope. eals parently aque that I have only stated that ): mA “fed fie aay tle petites claim of-a old Sadittmen hes. merit at a// ? (See Doc.no.5; rahe? ji a¥6 ) —_pbppe, Uo C~) U7 * | able oP Av hor le: Ve ases.t(—lones V. U.S) 1 no Wan, Hardrick an (Vis. Landha ot yo, A MeCatn v, Smith p-4 md, 22 Lf. AV S |, No 3 SV, Berrie: Centeno fp 5: : : mae ) 0, sno, 10,93 a a (9 : | 5 ta conatg he lech clement in pecttign’s —_ indictment as only making At flowed, the Mth Ci i baurls have. alse aunided petifoners clan thal his —_ feel Count es Fist nel the assistinde chen — _.he_uirged petitioner to_pledd TS oprame Curb cases, Nich Chey and Stade Syprame ___Covrt cases _all hold Hat etectie assisttnce From ———Covnsel_causing defendants conuietion onavold indictment constitute the “cause and prejedice.” ——Htecessary Th_create an_eets ation th a procedural ba |e hyde The couch ln the Ich Ok dscounce Petitioner's claim Aan obviously veld Indictment and _nFfectve assistance of counsel, and grenta motiey Th dismiss his habeas cagoes, tahen dis tele) caunse] urged his wilty pleaand also delivered a, eSecufok= te reat tcl these consPitational ololetons — should sere_as_an exception toa procedure) bar of Cases: (cllesky.v_ Zant) p. 141.5 | ps ai ts Fees la peta ———_ Henderson U. Names) pd. mo a Pa fone cifes several I tAppeals case eh hold that ay appellate attorney’ ile nsu —_—_timely, ‘onstitutes ineffective assistance, sponse —_tictby is appellate atprney, the Utb_Cic District courts have stated that covnsel's foilure fp consulton a pee pane Q id val results, Gnd uct filing a federal ofp as hal onl CW _—_4a des variety” s “e cUsab/e hede Uch_@ “6 mM nis — , %1% : , Wou td The. di ay court: GaAUuyrj and Tne h C | tl peu cit ee als 2n tp Dismiss. br vetimely Eling i 4aers 4nd lous Show that the appellate attorney’ Gibre fo_tonstv|+ with Which_excepys 1a. brocedual ba b habeas peview — ReRoner quers That Thi's sno “erro eovs Tactoal tinang , bof actvall ly an abuse atthe power Jl discretion » (a es U5, Us navez\p, 2 No, 8 i estrepo V. Kelly 2 vo, 7 Clayton U. Jones ) p. 2 po, 10. Corral y. |), p,-2_ ho, Ll pe ne 9 | | ! Letitioher hes show 7h ings of hahea IConous peti ns by his attorney even aher~ | iDtom ise by sald attorney 10 file Timely and also Qa : | ip partial payne six weeks in advance’ of the filtig_dlead ~ il{ne forhis stite haheas petition. The Vishicd: Court 'stafed in MS Order) that peftioner's Appellate counsel's piney fillng WOS probch y only a “garden Larkety “of ex. usable neglect due to ‘Simple nisca/ holation. See. Order” li) 3-/7 (Case ho, Cy 3ilb ~0b9 ) px F, lines 6-16. The (ourt also stated that sd applet counsel had 1 1 hsfy 5 ife Dhesented pp N10 er _-qdiligen nn 6 -dol4, until 18-2017, after too late fin y and fale Pp tonsuvfy | ud th Hone | artly fred» sat counsel, | AE at tine, Defhoner bad part his app elafe counsel #24, 500.” and wes breke | /) e Distttct Cov umposefly auold bet toners clatin ot ndtectue assistance, when it granted the Aer {hey Generals “Mofvon + Dismiss” based on virttmely Alldngs by sald otto oF ; me ala In the same _ order: efifioners ella: 2 Dorney Nad repre Sen efitioner with “dihaence” ? (Se Drder' aheve, p..) I Gases! Clayton Us Jones A. mo, Ld {Coraly5 a Z, wll 7 (S.Vi ve pa teu Bs nnoh V Maschner) p=. no. L& : pelaht v.US:) p32, (thompson

Docket Entries

2018-10-01
Petition DENIED.
2018-09-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/24/2018.
2018-09-05
Waiver of right of respondent Walter Berry, Warden to respond filed.
2018-05-23
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 24, 2018)

Attorneys

Arthur Lawton Clark
Arthur Lawton Clark — Petitioner
Arthur Lawton Clark — Petitioner
Walter Berry, Warden
Andrew Alan PinsonDeputy Solicitor, Respondent
Andrew Alan PinsonDeputy Solicitor, Respondent