No. 19-6390

Edward L. Collins v. Mark S. Inch, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2019-10-24
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: constitutional-violation due-process eighth-amendment equal-protection fifth-amendment fourteenth-amendment ineffective-assistance-of-counsel jury-trial miranda-rights self-incrimination sixth-amendment
Key Terms:
DueProcess CriminalProcedure
Latest Conference: 2019-12-06
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Was the Petitioner's right to due process and freedom from self-incrimination violated?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. | Was the Petitioner’s right to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and right to a jury trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution to the United States Constitution violated because the trial court allowed the jury to view a video interrogation of the Petitioner that was not admitted into evidence because law enforcement violated the Petitioner’s Miranda rights before conducting the interrogation? ' 2. Was the Petitioner’s right to due process and freedom from. selfincrimination under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution violated when the trial court allowed the jury to view a video interrogation of the Petitioner that occurred before the Petitioner waived his Miranda rights? 3. Was the Petitioner’s right to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and right to equal protection of the law under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution violated when the state postconviction court did not allow the Petitioner an opportunity to amend his facially insufficient postconviction motion as required by Florida law? 4. Was the Petitioner’s right to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution violated _ because Petitioner’s counsel failed to investigate, interview or call a witness to testify who would have provided exculpatory testimony that the alleged victim, not the Petitioner actually possessed the firearm?

Docket Entries

2019-12-09
Petition DENIED.
2019-11-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/6/2019.
2019-11-13
Waiver of right of respondent Mark S. Inch to respond filed.
2019-10-09
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 25, 2019)
2019-09-11
Application (19A281) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until October 9, 2019.
2019-09-03
Application (19A281) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from September 9, 2019 to November 8, 2019, submitted to Justice Thomas.

Attorneys

Edward L. collins
Edward L. Collins — Petitioner
Mark S. Inch
Trisha Meggs PateOffice of the Attorney General Criminal Appeals Division Tallahassee, Respondent