No. 19-5459

Edward Lee Carter v. Lorie Davis, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division

Lower Court: Fifth Circuit
Docketed: 2019-08-05
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Relisted (2)IFP
Tags: appellate-review civil-rights constitutional-rights criminal-procedure due-process fair-trial impartial-judge judicial-impartiality judicial-misconduct sixth-amendment
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2019-12-13 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a criminal defendant is constitutionally entitled to a fair trial from an impartial judge who is not corrupt to preside and rule over his trial court proceedings

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

No question identified. : QUYSSTIONS | 1S 0 (§LiMiNal defendant Constftutfonaly entitle to a Fate Trial From ow Partial Sudae WHO TS NOT CORRUET to Preside and Cule aver his Trial Court Prosn: lke tal tour tht hos lee deere, concur Q)TS a State Trial Cour as een deemed Cortue Ts CONSttubionaly entitle to o PresumPtion of Correciness $ 3) Does a Criminal deferidanst havea fundamental constittuttonal iat ond a \ilbect9 intrest to a Fore Proceed ind in the State /trial court 2 4) Does on indigent criminal defendant have o const Hubtoval CidhT to a meaningful Arceck aP eal in a State aPPellate Court 2 5) Js ON INdISeNT Ceirinal deFendantt Const tutional eNtitled to Know Who his Counsel 15 on dftect affeal » or IF hes beeing Tepresented on Airect aPPedl ly Counsel at all 2 () Hos an indigent Cf defendant beer darted bis sixth Amendment Constitutional ciaht to eFFective asses tance. OF Counsel on Arieck aPPeal » {Fa state aePorntted atte Counsel Foils To NOTIEY the defendant That Counsel has been arrontted oy the trial Court to ceéreserst the deferdantt ON direct aePeal > oe 7) Has an nga cieminal dendant been dented his Sasth amend Ment Constitu tonal Cant to effective 05575 tonce. of Counse| ON Atreck at eal TF Counsel Cfles an Inddeauate rel toa State afpellate court on behalf of the defendant and Never NOTEELES o¢ allow the defendant to even view the brier _ That 15 uP For feview 3 rc QUU TIONS: 8) Has 0 CCirrfiial defendant beer denied hts Sixth amendment Constitutional cfaht to effective assistance of Counsel ON Aicect aPCealr r€ With out NO eFendanT Akointed areellate Counse| ae 1554S IN te areellont Court ont belnal€ of the deferdont that were not, Preserved For ei and were there-fore warved For Ceview in the affellate Court 6 A On (decal habeas softs (eyiew 15 ede ishcet cant) “a Constitutionals (eLorced to “Look through” on ONEKPlai Stake Courts decision, to the last States Courts decision thet Provides o relevant tational when deciding i€ the aeFendarts claims are Proceducally barred, From Ceview on Wis 2454 Federal habeas Corfus writ 2 lOVON Federal habeas Coceus Ceview 150 Ceiminal deFardant’s Cloris Proceducal barred if the last State court that €cOvided O Celevant Cattonal decision did not Clearly and . CKP(e5STY CeIY ON waiver 05 Ffounds For fedectiNg ANY asPect oF the defendant's chains, which he Proper |¥ @resented to the State and Federal courts % uy) ON Federal habeas coc lew, does GN INA IeNT. INMate_who 15 Confine in a State Prison have a CONsttutional taht to due Pracess by allowing him to Send “RELIWANT” facts of nis trial franseriets to the Federal tha ComT IN ofder to Perfect his 2954 Federal habeas CorPus weit 3 It, . “Nos TABLE + + + OF + + + CONTENTS QUISTLON PRESENTED TABLE OF AUTHORITILS ww CPINTONS BZLOW 4 JURTSO TCT ION a STATEMZNT OF THE CAS2 83,4 REAGAN FOR GRANTING THE WRIT 5-38 ~ CONCLUSTON ab INOLX TOAPPENDICZS | APCENOLY, A= FERN Ciecurt enloanc dects on APPENDLY 2 Fifth cicaut CO-A decision APPINOLX C= Western disterch of Texas decision. 4 APPEND LX D = Texas Court of CAviwal offeals dental \ ARPENOLX @ =Stotes habeas courts Crecommmendation | APPENOTY Fe The Foucth court of abReals [Sort Arctonio | (emorandun | Judament CAtcect affeal | A-& = Cortuet Judae sentenced to Feder Prison F = The States exlnibsts LofFered, or admitted evidence] C= The Stote deem attellate counsel ineffective H=Attellate counsel’ APT avt Line EK eal _ , ee CAH LO TS*: CONTINUED L=States habeas Court cesianatina (5U0S, which have Yet to he (esolve. J= Stee one Strevance, State impediment by Law ; Library. ; , Ks Teal teousca es Pacts Fromtrial that ore RELZVANT VO ; L= Teal tronscerels Ports From trial that ore RELTVANT (vel 3 ] M=Teial transcripts Pacts From trial That are RELEVANT “ [vols 3.45] N : Teal os cfiets Pacts From the teal Hnat ace RILLVANT (= Trial tronscciets Parts From tial tat ace RELEVANT Cvo\4 | . a . P= Teal trawscriets Pacts Frorn trial that ave QLLTVANT Vol5 (X= Trial transecfets Parts From tri

Docket Entries

2019-12-16
Rehearing DENIED.
2019-11-26
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/13/2019.
2019-11-04
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2019-10-15
Petition DENIED.
2019-09-19
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/11/2019.
2019-07-18
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 4, 2019)
2019-05-09
Application (18A1155) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until July 19, 2019.
2019-04-29
Application (18A1155) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from May 20, 2019 to July 19, 2019, submitted to Justice Alito.

Attorneys

Edward Carter
Edward Lee Carter — Petitioner
Edward Lee Carter — Petitioner