No. 19-7695
Arturo Delacruz v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: brandishing criminal-procedure group-one-robbery ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel otherwise-used plea-negotiation robbery-offense sentencing-guidelines weapon-enhancement
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2020-03-20
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to negotiate a five-level, rather than a six-level increase for Group One?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Because Petitioner did not explicitly admit to facts that would support an “otherwise used” weapon enhancement, as opposed to a “brandishing” weapon enhancement, in connection with the group one robbery, was trial counsel ineffective for failing to negotiate a five-level, rather than a sixlevel increase for Group One? i
Docket Entries
2020-03-23
Petition DENIED.
2020-03-05
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/20/2020.
2020-02-27
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-02-12
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 19, 2020)
Attorneys
Arturo Delacruz
Craig S. Leeds — Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent