No. 19-5521

Steven Michael Cox v. Nevada

Lower Court: Nevada
Docketed: 2019-08-08
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP Experienced Counsel
Tags: criminal-statute due-process montgomery-v-louisiana retroactivity statutory-interpretation substantive-rule teague-standard welch-v-united-states
Latest Conference: 2019-10-01
Question Presented (from Petition)

Under the new constitutional rule of retroactivity established in Montgomery v. Louisiana and clarified in Welch v. United States, is a state court required under the federal constitution to retroactively apply interpretations of a substantive criminal statute that narrow its scope?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the federal constitution requires states to retroactively apply a decision narrowing the interpretation of a substantive criminal statute

Docket Entries

2019-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2019-08-22
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-08-16
Waiver of right of respondent Nevada to respond filed.
2019-08-06
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 9, 2019)

Attorneys

Steven Cox
Jonathan Michael KirshbaumLaw Offices of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
Steven S. Owens
Steven S. Owens — Respondent