No. 18-8425

Henry Johnson Lucas, Jr. v. Virginia

Lower Court: Virginia
Docketed: 2019-03-14
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: appeals brady-violation civil-procedure civil-procedure-appeal-timeliness-dismissal-rules- constitutional-violation due-process evidence-suppression new-trial-motion procedural-error prosecutorial-misconduct rules-of-court standing timeliness
Key Terms:
Takings FourthAmendment Privacy
Latest Conference: 2019-05-09
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Did the Virginia Supreme Court rule erroneously in dismissing petitioner's appeal as being untimely under Rule 5:9(a) of the Supreme Court of Virginia?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED . I. Did the Virginia Supreme Court rule. : erroneously in dismissing petitioner's | appeal as being untimelv under Rule 5:9(a) | . of the Supreme Court of Virginia. II. Did the Caircuit Court of Culpeper County, | Virginia the last court that ruled, erroneously dismiss petitioner's Motion , For a New Trial under Rule 1:1 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia. IIl. Did the Circuit Court of Culpener Céuntv, Virginia the last court that ruled, erroneousfv rule that the Culvever, Virginia Police Depaztment was not in violation of Code of Virginia §19.2-59 illegal search, and Amendment Four of the United States . Constitution, and Brady v. Md. IV. Did the Circuit COurt of Culpeper County, Virginia the last court thastruled, erroneously rule when it dismissed petitioner's Motion For a New Trial on newly discovered missing etidence, exoulvatorv, and impeachment evidence after 21 davs has expnired, and Brady. Vv. Did the Circuit Court of Culpever Countv. Virginiasthe last court that ruled, erroneously rule when it did not erant a new triaklbased on -prosecutoral, police misconduct . VI. Did the Circuit Court of Culpever.Countv. Virginia the last court that ruled, erroneously did not erant vetitioner a New Trial when the conviction was principally based on veriurv. VII. Did the Circuit Court error when the Common-. wealth failed to deny that there were four incidents of sexual intercourse not one incident of rape, Brady v. Md. °9 ii .

Docket Entries

2019-05-13
Petition DENIED.
2019-04-18
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/9/2019.
2019-04-10
Waiver of right of respondent Virginia to respond filed.
2019-02-11
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 15, 2019)

Attorneys

Henry Lucas
Henry J. Lucas Jr. — Petitioner
Virginia
Toby Jay HeytensOffice of the Attorney General, Respondent