No. 21-5420
IFP
Tags: burden-of-proof capital-case constitutional-rights criminal-procedure ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel prejudice preponderance-of-the-evidence strickland-standard strickland-v-washington texas-court-of-criminal-appeals
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus Punishment Securities JusticiabilityDoctri
DueProcess HabeasCorpus Punishment Securities JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2021-12-10
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals erred in denying Naim Rasool Muhammad's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED In this capital case, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (““TCCA”) denied Naim Rasool Muhammad’s claim that his trial counsel were constitutionally ineffective because, it held, he “fail[ed] to meet his burden under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), to show by a preponderance of the evidence” that his counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced him.
Docket Entries
2021-12-13
Petition DENIED.
2021-11-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/10/2021.
2021-11-23
Reply of petitioner Naim Rasool Muhammad filed. (Distributed)
2021-11-09
Brief of respondent Texas in opposition filed.
2021-10-08
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted in part and the time is further extended to and including November 9, 2021.
2021-10-07
Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 20, 2021 to November 19, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-08-25
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including October 20, 2021.
2021-08-24
Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 20, 2021 to October 20, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-08-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 20, 2021)
Attorneys
Naim Rasool Muhammad
Benjamin Barrett Wolff — Office of Capital and Forensic Writs, Petitioner
Texas