No. 19-8833
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: abuse-of-discretion constitutional-review criminal-appeal criminal-procedure ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel maryland-court-of-appeals prejudice strickland-prejudice strickland-test weaver-precedent weaver-v-massachusetts
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2020-09-29
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Has the Maryland Court of Appeals abused its discretion by applying Weaver v. Massachusetts to mandate looking at the strength of the prosecution's case as outcome determinative on the issue of Strickland prejudice?
Question Presented (from Petition)
Question Presented Has the Maryland Court of Appeals abused its discretion by applying Weaver v. Massachusetis(, 137 S. Ct. 1899 (2017)) to mandate looking at the strength of the prosecution’s case as outcome determinative on the issue of Strickland prejudice? See, Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984). ii Parties and Related Cases The names of all parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. There are no
Docket Entries
2020-10-05
Petition DENIED.
2020-07-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
2020-07-10
Waiver of right of respondent Maryland to respond filed.
2020-06-22
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 27, 2020)
Attorneys
Christopher Mann
William Lawrence Welch III — Attorney at Law, Petitioner
William Lawrence Welch III — Attorney at Law, Petitioner