No. 18-8621
Roummel Ingram v. John Prelesnik, Warden
Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: constitutional-rights criminal-procedure due-process evidentiary-hearing habeas-corpus ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel public-trial sixth-amendment sixth-circuit
Key Terms:
FourthAmendment CriminalProcedure HabeasCorpus
FourthAmendment CriminalProcedure HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2021-06-24
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether Mr. Ingram is entitled to a new trial due to ineffective-assistance-of-counsel
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether Mr. Ingram is entitled to a new trial, or alternatively a full evidentiary hearing, because his trial and appellate counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to challenge the legality of his arrest. 2. Whether Mr. Ingram is entitled to a new trial because the trial judge sealed the courtroom during the testimony of a key prosecution witness.
Docket Entries
2021-06-28
Rehearing DENIED.
2021-06-08
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/24/2021.
2019-06-21
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2019-05-28
Petition DENIED.
2019-05-08
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/23/2019.
2019-05-01
Waiver of right of respondent John Prelesnik, Warden to respond filed.
2018-09-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 29, 2019)
Attorneys
John Prelesnik, Warden
Fadwa A. Hammoud — Michigan Department of Attorney General, Respondent
Roummel Ingram
Roummel Ingram — Petitioner