No. 19-6955

Shondell J. Paul v. New York

Lower Court: New York
Docketed: 2019-12-16
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 14th-amendment appellate-procedure appellate-review constitutional-question due-process federal-constitutional-law fourteenth-amendment ineffective-assistance-of-counsel precedent stare-decisis state-court state-court-precedent state-court-procedure
Key Terms:
DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2020-02-21
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does the Fourteenth Amendment place an obligation on the New York Court of Appeals to address a federal constitutional question when its prior precedent binds its lower courts but conflicts with clearly established federal constitutional law?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Does the Fourteenth Amendment place an obligation on the New York Court of Appeals to address a federal constitutional question when its prior precedent ‘ bind its lower courts but conflicts with clearly established federal constitutional . law? ‘ Can a state court use a remedial direct appeal, ordered to cure appellate counsel's ineffectiveness, as a vehicle to substantively change state law without violating the spirit of the Sixth Amendment’s Counsel Clause, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, and Strickland v. Washington's directive? . i

Docket Entries

2020-02-24
Petition DENIED.
2020-01-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2020.
2020-01-14
Waiver of right of respondent New York to respond filed.
2019-12-03
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 15, 2020)

Attorneys

New York
Bradley Wayne OastlerOnondaga County District Attorney's Office, Respondent
Bradley Wayne OastlerOnondaga County District Attorney's Office, Respondent
Shondell Paul
Shondell Paul — Petitioner
Shondell Paul — Petitioner