No. 18-7114
Earle D. Williams v. California
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: aggravated-kidnapping asportation constitutional-vagueness criminal-law dimaya-precedent due-process kidnapping penal-code sessions-v-dimaya statutory-interpretation vagueness vagueness-doctrine
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus Securities Immigration
DueProcess HabeasCorpus Securities Immigration
Latest Conference:
2019-02-15
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether California Penal Code Section 209(b) is unconstitutionally vague under Sessions v. Dimaya
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
No question identified. :
Docket Entries
2019-02-19
Petition DENIED.
2019-01-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/15/2019.
2019-01-02
Waiver of right of respondent California to respond filed.
2018-12-14
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 18, 2019)
2018-10-12
Application (18A384) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until December 15, 2018.
2018-10-04
Application (18A384) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from October 16, 2018 to December 15, 2018, submitted to The Chief Justice.
Attorneys
Earle Williams
Kieran Daniel Cruz Manjarrez — sole practitioner, Petitioner
Kieran Daniel Cruz Manjarrez — sole practitioner, Petitioner
People of the State of California
David Andries Voet — CA Dept. of Justice-Office of the AG, Respondent
David Andries Voet — CA Dept. of Justice-Office of the AG, Respondent