No. 19-5700
Maximo Brito-Tejeda v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: client-request constitutional-right due-process garza-v-idaho habeas-corpus ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel legal-malpractice notice-of-appeal procedural-default right-to-appeal sixth-amendment
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2019-10-01
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether Garza v. Idaho, 139 S. Ct. 738 (2019), applies to petitioner's claim that his defense counsel was ineffective by failing to file a notice of appeal despite petitioner requesting him to do so?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED WHETHER GARZA v. IDAHO, 139 S. Ct. 738 (2019), APPLIES TO PETITIONER'S CLAIM THAT HIS DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE BY FAILING TO FILE A NOTICE OF APPEAL DESPITE PETITIONER REQUESTING HIM TO DO SO?
Docket Entries
2019-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2019-09-12
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-09-03
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2019-08-13
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 23, 2019)
Attorneys
Maximo Brito-Tejeda
Maximo Brito-Tejeda — Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent