No. 18-8007

Kenneth R. Beagle v. Kevin Lindsey, Warden

Lower Court: Sixth Circuit
Docketed: 2019-02-15
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: alleyne-ruling Alleyne-v-United-States constitutional-law criminal-procedure due-process Montgomery-v-Louisiana retroactivity retroactivity-doctrine supreme-court teague-doctrine Teague-v-Lane
Key Terms:
DueProcess FifthAmendment
Latest Conference: 2019-04-12
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Did the court in Montgomery v. Louisiana identify, for the first time, a third criteria for determining which of its rulings may be applied retroactively, as outlined in Teague vs Lane, and if it did, may Alleyne v. United States now be applied retroactively?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED . . DID THE COURT IN MONTGOMERY V. LOUISIANA IDENTIFY, FOR THE . FIRST TIME, A THIRD CRITERIA ‘FOR DETERMINING WHICH OF ITS RULINGS MAY BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY, AS OUTLINED IN TEAGUE Vs LANE, AND IF IT DID, MAY ALLEYNE V. UNITED STATES NOW BE ~ APPLIED RETROACTIVELY? . ~ cee ~ (4)

Docket Entries

2019-04-15
Petition DENIED.
2019-03-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/12/2019.
2019-03-11
Waiver of right of respondent Kevin Lindsey, Warden to respond filed.
Main Document
2018-07-30
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 18, 2019)
Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma PauperisPetitionAppendixProof of Service

Attorneys

Kenneth R. Beagle
Kenneth R. Beagle — Petitioner
Kenneth R. Beagle — Petitioner
Kevin Lindsey, Warden
Fadwa A. Hammoud — Michigan Department of Attorney General, Respondent
Fadwa A. Hammoud — Michigan Department of Attorney General, Respondent