No. 21-1016
Andrew Huy Chrostowski v. Harold W. Clarke, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections
Response Waived
Tags: constitutional-rights criminal-defense cruel-and-unusual-punishment due-process habeas-corpus ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel mental-health plea-bargaining psychiatric-examination right-to-present-defense
Key Terms:
Punishment
Punishment
Latest Conference:
2022-03-18
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did trial counsel's failure to make a constitutionally adequate inquiry into viable defenses deprive the petitioner of his right to present 'full and fair defense'?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED A. Did trial counsel’s failure to make a constitutionally adequate inquiry into viable defenses deprive the petitioner of his right to present ‘full and fair defense’? B. Did his sentence violate the petitioner’s right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution? i PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
Docket Entries
2022-03-21
Petition DENIED.
2022-02-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/18/2022.
2022-02-17
Waiver of right of respondent Harold Clarke to respond filed.
2021-10-08
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 18, 2022)
Attorneys
Andrew Chrostowski
Dale Reese Jensen — Dale Jensen, PLC, Petitioner
Harold Clarke
Andrew Nathan Ferguson — Office of the Attorney General, Respondent