No. 19-8903
William Clyde Gibson, III v. Indiana
IFP
Tags: conflict-of-interest constitutional-claim criminal-appeal culyer-v-sullivan due-process ineffective-assistance-counsel post-conviction-proceedings public-defender strickland-standard strickland-v-washington
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus Punishment CriminalProcedure
DueProcess HabeasCorpus Punishment CriminalProcedure
Latest Conference:
2020-10-09
Related Cases:
19-8904
(Vide)
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Indiana Supreme Court erred in determining Gibson's conflict of interest claim should be analyzed under Strickland v. Washington rather than Culyer v. Sullivan
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Indiana Supreme Court erred in determining Gibson’s conflict of interest claim should be analyzed under Strickland v. Washington rather than Culyer v. Sullivan, where lead counsel’s loyalties to Gibson were encumbered by his position as head of the county public defender agency. Page 2 of 26
Docket Entries
2020-10-13
Petition DENIED.
2020-09-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/9/2020.
2020-09-04
Brief of respondent Indiana in opposition filed.
2020-07-30
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including September 4, 2020.
2020-07-29
Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 5, 2020 to September 4, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-06-30
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 5, 2020)
Attorneys
Indiana
Thomas M. Fisher — Office of the Indiana Attorney General, Respondent
Thomas M. Fisher — Office of the Indiana Attorney General, Respondent
Stephen Richard Creason — Respondent
Stephen Richard Creason — Respondent
William Clyde Gibson, III
Joanna Lyn Green III — Public Defender Of Indiana, Petitioner
Joanna Lyn Green III — Public Defender Of Indiana, Petitioner