No. 20-5327

Thyochus A. Huggins v. California

Lower Court: California
Docketed: 2020-08-12
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 6th-amendment appointment-of-counsel civil-rights due-process faretta-v-california self-representation
Key Terms:
Immigration
Latest Conference: 2020-09-29
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Did the trial court violate Petitioner's rights under the Sixth Amendment as set forth in Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) when it told Petitioner that he would not be allowed to represent himself again if he decided to proceed with counsel and forced the appointment of counsel against Petitioner's will?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED : . 1s Did the trial court violabe. Pelitionare eights under the, Sudlh_ Amendmunt asl Fast ¥ California 422 US. 9060975) when, % Wu 0. Spg\e iod_cf ewif — vepcasantation by PeiHonue ded trio to thal the taunt hin thet he would not be allowed +o. represent himsel® agoin if he deudad to proted with ‘Comeat. and tard chorea the... ezappowrtment of counsal.an Petibionars foe fertuce_ OF hie. Facetto tights 8

Docket Entries

2020-10-05
Petition DENIED.
2020-09-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
2020-09-02
Waiver of right of respondent California to respond filed.
2020-07-17
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 11, 2020)

Attorneys

California
Catherine Baker ChatmanOffice of the Attorney General, California, Respondent
Thyochus A. Huggins
Thyochus A. Huggins — Petitioner