No. 19-6970

Monty Dwayne Sullivan v. Wyoming

Lower Court: Wyoming
Docketed: 2019-12-18
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 14th-amendment 5th-amendment 6th-amendment access-to-courts brady-v-maryland civil-rights constitutional-rights due-process effective-assistance-of-counsel ineffective-assistance prosecutorial-misconduct
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity DueProcess FourthAmendment HabeasCorpus JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2020-01-24
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Was Sullivan deprived of his Constitutional rights?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Was Sullivan deprived of his 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment Constitutional , Rights by all the lower Courts? These questions have been asked and not resolved by the lower Courts. ' 2. Was Sullivan deprived of his Right to Due Process in violation of 6th ~ Amendment by Prosecutor Jerry D. Williams of Hot Springs County, WY . : whom suppressed/withheld two medical exams, which proves Sullivan is ; actually innocent of the crimes of conviction by refusing the triers of fact, all , . relevant evidence and in accordance with Brady v. Maryland? 3. Was Sullivan deprived of his guaranteed Constitutional Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel when appointed counsel Valerie Schoneberger : _ presented herself as a Contract Attorney but in fact has a title of Wyoming : State Public Defender, Senior Assistance Appellate Attorney directly under ; supervision of Diane Lozano which Sullivan has a direct conflict with the whole Public Defenders Office due to the ineffective assistance of counsel at direct appeal? : ; 4. Was Sullivan’s United States Constitutional Right of Access to Courts ; hearings and procedures directly violated by Warden Michael Pacheco when , . Sullivan requested to attend the hearing at the Wyoming Supreme Court on a secure broadcast was DENIED? , 5. Was Sullivan’s United States Constitutional Right of Access to Courts hearings and procedures directly violated by Law Librarian R. Jones, when it took two months and eighteen days later for a viewing of a Children’s Advocacy Project (CAP) Video? ; i CONCISE STATEMENT OF CASE This case addresses violations of: 1) The U. S. Constitution [Amendments 5 & 6 & 14]; | 2) Standing Precedents: The Constitution of the United States of America; 3) Standing Court Rules [Mailbox Rule] and; , 4) Monty Sullivan’s Civil Rights. | Comes now, Sullivan requests that the judgment entered on July 16, 2019 by the Wyoming Supreme Court by Justice’s Davis, Fox, Boomgaarden and Gray in ‘Case No. S-18-0215 for the Appeal from the District Court of Hot Springs County, Wyoming by Judge Robert E. Skar be overturned and a new trail with an evidentiary hearing so Sullivan can finally fully develop the record to show his incarceration has been illegal from arraignment.

Docket Entries

2020-01-27
Petition DENIED.
2020-01-09
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/24/2020.
2019-12-23
Waiver of right of respondent Wyoming to respond filed.
2019-12-11
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 17, 2020)
2019-11-04
Application (19A485) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until December 13, 2019.
2019-10-07
Application (19A485) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from October 14, 2019 to December 13, 2019, submitted to Justice Kagan.

Attorneys

Monty Dwayne Sullivan
Monty D. Sullivan — Petitioner
Monty D. Sullivan — Petitioner
Wyoming
Jenny Lynn CraigOffice of the Wyoming Attorney General, Respondent
Jenny Lynn CraigOffice of the Wyoming Attorney General, Respondent