No. 18-9278

In Re Edmond McClinton

Lower Court: N/A
Docketed: 2019-05-17
Status: Dismissed
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: actual-innocence civil-rights constitutional-rights criminal-procedure due-process ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel lack-of-due-process lack-of-jurisdiction miscarriage-of-justice probable-cause prosecutorial-misconduct
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus CriminalProcedure
Latest Conference: 2019-06-06
Question Presented (AI Summary)

There was no probable cause for arrest

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. There was no probable cause for arrest. 2. Petitioner has not been bound over for trial, therefore trial court being without jurisdiction for trial. Petitioner being convicted illegally in violation of the laws and Constitution of Arkansas and the United States of America. 3. There was no preliminary hearing, no judge grand jury, nor grand jury to bind the -accused over for trial. 4. Petitioner was not given due process of plea and arraignment. 5. ‘Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, trial counsel nor appellant counsel protected the Constitutional rights of the petitioner, and was not functioning as representative nor counsel of the accused. Which caused serious prejudice. 6. Miscarriage of Justice, a gross unfair outcome in a judicial proceeding as when the defendant is convicted despite a procedural and substantive due process, and also despite a lack of evidence on an essential element of the public offense. 7. Prosecutorial Misconduct, improper or illegal act, esp. involving an attempt to avoid required disclosure or to persuade the jury to wrongly convict a defendant or assess an unjustified punishment. 8. The evidence used for conviction was not authenticated. There was no chain of custody for the evidence, the police evidence log did not have a record of the evidence used at trial, nor did the hospital report have such records neither. 9. Hospital report shows that the incident did not take place, actual innocence.

Docket Entries

2019-06-10
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).
2019-05-22
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/6/2019.
2019-04-09
Petition for writ of habeas corpus and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed.

Attorneys

In Re Edmond McClinton
Edmond McClinton — Petitioner
Edmond McClinton — Petitioner