No. 18-7678
Alfonso Hernandez v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: client-attorney-relationship client-autonomy constitutional-rights criminal-procedure due-process ineffective-assistance motion-to-dismiss sixth-amendment sixth-amendment-right-to-counsel sixth-circuit speedy-trial-act trial-counsel
Key Terms:
Environmental SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Environmental SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference:
2019-03-01
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Can a defense lawyer, consistent with the Sixth Amendment, contravene his client's wishes to object to a violation of the Speedy Trial Act?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Can a defense lawyer, consistent with the Sixth Amendment, contravene his . client’s wishes to object to a violation of the Speedy Trial Act? 2. Whether the Ninth Circuit violated this Court’s recent decision in McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 8. Ct. 1500 (2018), in affirming the district court’s exclusion of 559-days under the Speedy Trial Act, between arraignment and trial, over Mr. Hernandez’s objection, via his trial counsel’s failure to join Mr. Hernandez’s oral motion to dismiss the indictment? 4
Docket Entries
2019-03-04
Petition DENIED.
2019-02-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/1/2019.
2019-02-08
Waiver of right of respondent USA to respond filed.
2019-01-25
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 1, 2019)
Attorneys
Alfonso Hernandez
Benjamin P. Lechman — Federal Defenders of San Diego, Petitioner
Benjamin P. Lechman — Federal Defenders of San Diego, Petitioner
USA
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent