No. 19-7982
Alex Penland v. Ohio
IFP
Tags: abuse-of-discretion criminal-conviction criminal-procedure due-process evidence false-testimony habeas-corpus judicial-fraud legal-remedy post-conviction-relief prosecutorial-misconduct trial-court-discretion
Key Terms:
Environmental SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Environmental SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference:
2020-05-15
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does the trial court abuse its discretion when it failed to entertain Penland's claim that his conviction was tainted by fraud when the prosecutor knowingly solicited and failed to correct false testimony?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Does the trial court abuse its discretion when it failed to entertain Penland’s claim that his conviction was tainted by fraud when the prosecutor knowingly solicited and failed to correct false testimony? © iii. TABLE OF CONTENT CONTENT PAGE(S) QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW.:0::ceseet
Docket Entries
2020-05-18
Petition DENIED.
2020-04-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/15/2020.
2019-11-26
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 13, 2020)
Attorneys
Alex Penland
Alex Penland — Petitioner