No. 18-6285
Mady Chan, aka Maddy, aka Mandy, aka Manny v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: constitutional-right constitutional-rights counsel-advice criminal-procedure due-process ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel padilla-precedent padilla-v-kentucky sixth-amendment speedy-trial-act
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2018-11-09
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Should the holding in Padilla v. Kentucky extend to the attorney's failure to advise a client that under Speedy Trial Act a violation cannot be waived?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED Should the holding in Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) that an attorney’s failure to advise a criminal client of succinct, clear, and explicit law constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel extend to the attorney’s failure to advise a client that under succinct, clear, and explicit law a Speedy Trial Act violation cannot be waived? i
Docket Entries
2018-11-13
Petition DENIED.
2018-10-25
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/9/2018.
2018-10-22
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2018-10-02
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 9, 2018)
Attorneys
Mady Chan
Vicki Marolt Buchanan — Vicki Marolt Buchanan, Petitioner
Vicki Marolt Buchanan — Vicki Marolt Buchanan, Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent