No. 19-952
Michael David Goodwin v. United States
Response Waived
Tags: attorney-client-relationship change-of-plea criminal-defendant criminal-procedure ineffective-assistance local-counsel right-to-counsel sixth-amendment
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2020-02-28
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether an attorney's presence as local counsel, for a criminal defendant's re-arraignment and change of plea, yet having no attorney-client relationship with the defendant and refusing to advocate for the defendant, violates the criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Whether an attorney’s presence as local counsel, for a criminal defendant’s re-arraignment and change of plea, yet having no attorney-client relationship with the defendant and refusing to advocate for the defendant, violates the criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
Docket Entries
2020-03-02
Petition DENIED.
2020-02-12
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/28/2020.
2020-02-05
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2019-12-27
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 2, 2020)
2019-10-21
Application (19A435) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until December 27, 2019.
2019-10-15
Application (19A435) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from October 28, 2019 to December 27, 2019, submitted to Justice Alito.
Attorneys
Michael D Goodwin
Carrie Frances Castro — Law Office of Carrie Castro LLC, Petitioner
Solicitor General United States Department of Justice
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent