No. 18-9002
David Curtis Smith v. Mark S. Inch, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: aedpa de-novo-review ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel jury-instruction jury-instructions prejudice prejudice-prong sixth-amendment strickland-standard strickland-v-washington
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus Securities
DueProcess HabeasCorpus Securities
Latest Conference:
2019-05-30
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Petitioner was prejudiced under the Sixth Amendment due to trial counsel's failure to object to a concededly erroneous jury instruction and whether the Eleventh Circuit failed to afford de novo review to the prejudice prong of Strickland v. Washington?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Petitioner was prejudiced under the Sixth Amendment due to trial counsel’s failure to object to a concededly erroneous jury instruction and whether the Eleventh Circuit failed to afford de novo review to the prejudice prong of Strickland v. Washington? i
Docket Entries
2019-06-03
Petition DENIED.
2019-05-15
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/30/2019.
2019-05-10
Waiver of right of respondent Mark S. Inch, Florida Department of Corrections, et al. to respond filed.
2019-04-22
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 28, 2019)
Attorneys
David Smith
Todd Gerald Scher — Law Office of Todd G. Scher, P.L., Petitioner
Todd Gerald Scher — Law Office of Todd G. Scher, P.L., Petitioner
Mark S. Inch, Florida Department of Corrections
Carmen Francis Corrente — Respondent
Carmen Francis Corrente — Respondent