No. 21-6429
IFP
Tags: aggravating-factors alleyne-v-united-states apprendi-v-new-jersey capital-sentencing criminal-procedure due-process eighth-amendment fourteenth-amendment functional-elements hurst-v-florida ring-v-arizona
Key Terms:
DueProcess Punishment JusticiabilityDoctri
DueProcess Punishment JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2022-01-21
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Due Process Clause requires additional determinations under Florida's capital sentencing scheme to be made beyond a reasonable doubt
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
question presented in this case is whether, considering the operation and effect of Florida’s capital sentencing scheme, the Due Process Clause requires these additional determinations to be made beyond a reasonable doubt. Il. Whether the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments bar the imposition of the death penalty on a defendant who is over 18, but not yet 21, at the time of the charged offense. ‘ STATEMENT OF
Docket Entries
2022-01-24
Petition DENIED.
2022-01-19
Reply of petitioner Randall T. Deviney filed. (Distributed)
2022-01-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/21/2022.
2021-12-21
Brief of respondent Florida in opposition filed.
2021-11-17
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 27, 2021)
Attorneys
Randall T. Deviney
State of Florida
Carolyn M. Snurkowski — Office of the Attorney General, Respondent