No. 19-5882

Rome Richard Chacon v. Nevada

Lower Court: Nevada
Docketed: 2019-09-10
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP Experienced Counsel
Tags: civil-rights criminal-law criminal-statute due-process montgomery-louisiana montgomery-v-louisiana retroactivity statutory-interpretation substantive-rule teague-exception welch-united-states welch-v-united-states
Latest Conference: 2019-11-01
Question Presented (from Petition)

1. 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 a state court to retroactively apply a narrowing interpretation of a substantive criminal statute

Docket Entries

2019-11-04
Petition DENIED.
2019-10-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/1/2019.
2019-09-23
Waiver of right of respondent State of Nevada to respond filed.
2019-09-05
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 10, 2019)

Attorneys

Rome Chacon, et al.
Jonathan Michael KirshbaumLaw Offices of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
State of Nevada
Jonathan Eugene VanBoskerckOffice of the District Attorney, Clark County, Nevada, Respondent