No. 18-6032

D. L. v. Wisconsin

Lower Court: Wisconsin
Docketed: 2018-09-19
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: does-wisconsin's-sentencing-scheme-apply-to-juveni federal-habeas-proceedings habeas-corpus-review ineffective-assistance-counsel ineffective-assistance-of-counsel juvenile-sentencing mandatory-life-sentence martinez-trevino-doctrine martinez-v-ryan miller-v-alabama procedural-default state-habeas state-habeas-proceedings trevino-v-thaler
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus Punishment JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2018-11-16
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Can the exceptions excusing procedural default of ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims in the Martinez/Trevino doctrine apply to State Habeas proceedings wherein the same standard of review is used as in its federal counterpart?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED: (1) Can the exceptions excusing procedural default of ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims in the Martinez/Trevino doctrine apply to State Habeas proceedings wherein the same standard of review is used as in its federal counterpart? (2) Does Wisconsin's sentencing scheme as it applies to juveniles facing a mandatory life sentence in adult Court circumvent the rulings and spirit of Miller v. Alabama and its progeny, by mandating a judge, regardless of the Miller factors, to sentence a juvenile to a mandatory life sentence that amounts to a de facto +

Docket Entries

2018-11-19
Petition DENIED.
2018-11-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/16/2018.
2018-10-16
Waiver of right of respondent Wisconsin to respond filed.
2018-09-04
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 19, 2018)

Attorneys

D. L.
D. L. — Petitioner
D. L. — Petitioner
Wisconsin
Kara L. MeleWisconsin Department of Justice, Respondent
Kara L. MeleWisconsin Department of Justice, Respondent