No. 18-9736
Response RequestedRelisted (3)IFP
Tags: 4th-amendment 6th-amendment constitutional-law criminal-procedure fourth-amendment ineffective-assistance-of-counsel motion-to-suppress search-and-seizure sixth-amendment warrant warrantless-search
Latest Conference:
2020-01-10
(distributed 3 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
Were Petitioner's Sixth Amendment rights violated where counsel did not file a motion to suppress although the record indicates that police violated petitioner's Fourth Amendment rights by entering on his property without a warrant in order to search a vehicle therein which resulted in the unlawful search and seizure upon which the charge in this case is based?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Were Petitioner's Sixth Amendment rights violated?
Docket Entries
2020-01-13
Rehearing DENIED.
2019-12-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020.
2019-11-01
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2019-10-15
Petition DENIED.
2019-09-19
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/11/2019.
2019-09-04
Brief of respondent Ohio in opposition filed.
2019-08-05
Response Requested. (Due September 4, 2019)
2019-08-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-06-13
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 22, 2019)
Attorneys
Darius Kinney
Darius Kinney — Petitioner
Ohio