No. 20-5760
Daniel Carl Frederickson v. California
IFP
Tags: capital-case constitutional-rights defense-counsel faretta-v-california guilty-plea mccoy-v-louisiana plea-of-guilty self-representation sixth-amendment
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess Punishment CriminalProcedure Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess Punishment CriminalProcedure Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2020-11-13
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does a state statute that requires the consent of defense counsel before a defendant in a capital case can enter a plea of guilty violate the Sixth Amendment and the holdings of this Court in McCoy v. Louisiana, 584 U.S. ___, 188 S.Ct. 1500 (2018) and Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975)?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Does a state statute that requires the consent of defense counsel before a defendant in a capital case can enter a plea of guilty violate the Sixth Amendment and the holdings of this Court in McCoy v. Louisiana, 584 U.S. ___, 188 S.Ct. 1500 (2018) and Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975)?
Docket Entries
2020-11-16
Petition DENIED.
2020-10-29
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/13/2020.
2020-10-26
Reply of petitioner Daniel Carl Frederickson filed. (Distributed)
2020-10-13
Brief of respondent The State of California in opposition filed.
2020-09-15
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 21, 2020)
Attorneys
The State of California
Ronald Alan Jakob — CA Dept. of Justice, Respondent
Ronald Alan Jakob — CA Dept. of Justice, Respondent