No. 20-5218
Daniel Page v. Renee Baker, Warden, et al.
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: certificate-of-appealability criminal-procedure due-process guilty-plea ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel medical-condition ninth-circuit plea-bargaining pre-sentence-motion trial-counsel
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus JusticiabilityDoctri
DueProcess HabeasCorpus JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2020-09-29
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the trial court should have granted Mr. Page's pre-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred by denying a certificate of appealability on the question of whether the trial court should have granted Mr. Page’s pre-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea where the plea was not made knowingly, freely, and voluntarily? 2. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred by denying a certificate of appealability on the question of whether Mr. Page received ineffective assistance of trial counsel where his attorney failed to adequately investigate Mr. Page’s medical condition prior to entering his plea? i
Docket Entries
2020-10-05
Petition DENIED.
2020-08-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
2020-08-13
Waiver of right of respondent Renee Baker to respond filed.
2020-07-27
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 31, 2020)
Attorneys
Daniel Page
Renee Baker
Geordan Goebel — Nevada Attorney General's Office, Respondent
Geordan Goebel — Nevada Attorney General's Office, Respondent