No. 20-7330

James Marcus Lloyd, III v. J. Hutchinson, Warden

Lower Court: Fourth Circuit
Docketed: 2021-03-05
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: 922(g) actual-innocence constitutional-rights criminal-procedure due-process grand-jury ineffective-assistance rehaif right-to-trial structural-error
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2021-06-03
Question Presented (AI Summary)

whether-petitioner's-constitutional-right-to-due-process-was-denied

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED : : 1. Whether petitioners constitutional right to due process and his constitutional right to, “decide to proceed to trial or, plead guilty” was “denied” because, the district court as well as, petitioner’s trial counsel failed to, inform petitioner before trial or, during jury instructions of, the “essential element” of the offense to, convict him of the § 922(g) offense and, that this type of error —this denial of due process — is a structural error that, requires the vacatur of petitioners trial and conviction. Was this error a structural error, and did this error at trial affect petitioners substantial rights? : 2. Was the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in error when, it invoked that, they could not decide on the merits of petitioner’s Actual Innocence Claim of his § 2241 motion due to, there “lack of jurisdiction” over his claim and, refused petitioner to be appointed counsel, even though petitioner is currently confined and incarcerated within the District of South Carolina and, this denial by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to, challenge the validity of his underlying conviction. Were the courts in error? 3. Was the Grand Jury Indictment “Insufficient and defective” when, it did it not give the “true nature and, full notice” of, an “essential element” of the charged offense and, the grand jury was not “informed,” as well as, the petitioner of “all the essential facts” constituting the § 922(g) charged offense. The Grand Jury “never” got to “vote” or hear : of, the “omitted essential element” which, was missing from the charged offense. Did this violate the petitioners Due Process? 4. Did the Rule 29 Judgement of Acquittal at petitioners’ trial and, the blanket denial that, it did not “rise to the level of affecting petitioners’ substantial rights.” Under this “New Rehaif” standard which, relates back to petitioners original § 2255 motion which, was : denied by the District judge. Was the District Court in error? 3

Docket Entries

2021-06-07
Petition DENIED.
2021-05-19
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/3/2021.
2021-05-05
Memorandum of respondent J. Hutchinson filed.
2021-04-01
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including May 5, 2021.
2021-03-31
Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 5, 2021 to May 5, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-01-19
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 5, 2021)

Attorneys

J. Hutchinson
Elizabeth B. PrelogarActing Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. PrelogarActing Solicitor General, Respondent
James Lloyd
James Marcus Lloyd III — Petitioner
James Marcus Lloyd III — Petitioner