No. 18-9511

Christopher Stepp v. Mark S. Inch, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2019-06-04
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: constitutional-claims federal-habeas habeas-corpus habeas-relief ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel lafler-v-cooper missouri-v-frye wilson-v-sellers
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2019-10-01
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a federal habeas petitioner is entitled to § 2254 habeas relief

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Whether a federal habeas petitioner is entitled to § 2254 habeas relief where the district court failed to “look through” to the state court’s determination of his constitutional claims under Wilson v. Sellers, 584 US __, 138 S. Ct. 1188, 200 L Ed 2d 530 (2018), and the state court failed to acknowledge, much less apply, the Supreme Court’s holdings in Lafler v. Cooper, 566 US 156, 132 S Ct 1376, 182 L Ed 2d 398 (2012), and Missouri v. Frye, 566 US 134, 132 S Ct 1399, 182 L Ed 2d 379 (2012), to the petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel? ii INTERESTED PARTIES ; There are no interested

Docket Entries

2019-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2019-07-18
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-05-15
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 5, 2019)

Attorneys

Christopher Stepp
Christopher Stepp — Petitioner