No. 18-6078
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: civil-procedure constitutional-right criminal-procedure due-process ineffective-assistance-of-counsel outcome-determinative prejudice-prong sixth-amendment standing
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2018-10-26
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Do Ohio Courts err when they insist that the prejudice prong of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim requires proof that counsel's deficient performance was outcome determinative?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Do Ohio Courts err when they insist that the prejudice prong of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim requires proof that counsel’s deficient performance was outcome determinative? ii
Docket Entries
2018-10-29
Petition DENIED.
2018-10-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/26/2018.
2018-10-03
Waiver of right of respondent State of Ohio to respond filed.
2018-09-20
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 25, 2018)
2018-08-02
Application (18A114) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until September 21, 2018.
2018-07-25
Application (18A114) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from August 7, 2018 to September 21, 2018, submitted to Justice Kagan.
Attorneys
Carlton Springer
Jeffrey M. Gamso — Petitioner
State of Ohio
Frank Romeo Zeleznikar — Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office, Respondent