No. 19-5592
IFP
Tags: capital-defendant capital-punishment defense-counsel due-process evidence ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel legal-presumption post-conviction post-conviction-proceedings record record-evidence standard-of-review strategic-decision strategic-decision-making
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2019-10-18
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Should courts presume defense counsel acted strategically, even when the evidence in the record demonstrates a lack of strategy in their actions?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Should courts presume defense counsel acted strategically, even when the evidence in the record demonstrates a lack of strategy in their actions? 2. Is a capital defendant’s right to due process violated when he is allowed little substantive opportunity to satisfy the circular requirements of his state’s post-conviction statute? i
Docket Entries
2019-10-21
Petition DENIED.
2019-10-03
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/18/2019.
2019-09-13
Brief of respondent State of Ohio in opposition filed.
2019-08-13
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 16, 2019)
Attorneys
Dawud Spaulding
Erika Marie LaHote — Office of the Ohio Public Defender, Petitioner
Erika Marie LaHote — Office of the Ohio Public Defender, Petitioner
State of Ohio
Heaven Rose DiMartino — Summit County Prosecutor's Office, Respondent
Heaven Rose DiMartino — Summit County Prosecutor's Office, Respondent