No. 20-6113
Jeffrey Wogenstahl v. Tim Shoop, Warden
IFP
Tags: 28-usc-2254 capital-case direct-review habeas-review magwood-v-patterson merits-decision new-judgment state-court
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus Punishment
HabeasCorpus Punishment
Latest Conference:
2021-01-08
Question Presented (AI Summary)
When a state court re-opens direct review in a capital case, does the resultant state court merits decision constitute a 'new judgment' pursuant to this Court's decision in Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320, 337 (2010) so that the capital petitioner may then pursue habeas review of that 'new judgment' pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED When a state court re-opens direct review in a capital case, does the resultant state court merits decision constitute a “new judgment” pursuant to this Court’s decision in Magwood uv. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320, 337 (2010) so that the capital petitioner may then pursue habeas review of that “new judgment” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254? i
Docket Entries
2021-01-11
Petition DENIED.
2020-12-29
Reply of petitioner Jeffrey Wogenstahl filed. (Distributed)
2020-12-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.
2020-12-08
Brief of respondent Tim Shoop, Warden in opposition filed.
2020-10-30
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 23, 2020.
2020-10-29
Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 23, 2020 to December 23, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-10-06
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 23, 2020)
Attorneys
Jeffrey Wogenstahl
Kimberly Sue Rigby — Office of the Ohio Public Defender, Petitioner
Kimberly Sue Rigby — Office of the Ohio Public Defender, Petitioner
Tim Shoop, Warden
Benjamin Michael Flowers — Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, Respondent
Benjamin Michael Flowers — Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, Respondent