No. 19-5300
Fremo Santana v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: confrontation-clause criminal-procedure cross-examination guideline-range ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel plea-agreement plea-bargaining sentencing sentencing-guidelines sentencing-proceedings
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus Immigration
HabeasCorpus Immigration
Latest Conference:
2019-10-01
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether defense counsel's performance was constitutionally ineffective for erroneously miscalculating petitioner's guideline range which was the deciding factor for petitioner to accept the government's plea
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL'S PERFORMANCE WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY INEFFECTIVE FOR ERRONEOUSLY MISCALCULATING PETITIONER'S GUIDELINE RANGE WHICH WAS THE DECIDING FACTOR FOR PETITIONER TO ACCEPT THE GOVERNMENT'S PLEA. II. WHETHER THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE PROHIBITS THE ADMISSION OF TESTIMONIAL STATEMENTS THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION DURING THE SENTENCING PROCEEDINGS. t (4)
Docket Entries
2019-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2019-08-15
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-08-07
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2019-07-08
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 26, 2019)
Attorneys
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent