No. 18-7367
Darwin Markeith Huggans v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: case-review counsel-advice criminal-procedure due-process evidentiary-hearing ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel judicial-review lee-v-united-states legal-standard misinformation sixth-amendment
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2019-02-15
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Was the lower court required to address an evidentiary hearing when the evidence clearly showed that Huggins was misinformed based on counsel's advice?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW . In light of this court’s decision in Lee v. United States, 198 L. Ed. 2d 476 (2017) was the lower court required to address an evidentiary hearing when the evidence clearly showed that Huggins was misinformed based on counsels advice. ii
Docket Entries
2019-02-19
Petition DENIED.
2019-01-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/15/2019.
2019-01-17
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2018-11-21
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 11, 2019)
Attorneys
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent