No. 21-6724

Carl Thompson v. Alaska

Lower Court: Alaska
Docketed: 2021-12-23
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: criminal-procedure due-process habeas-corpus incompetent-counsel ineffective-assistance-of-counsel jurisdiction sixth-amendment supremacy-clause
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2022-02-18
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Can a trial court lose its jurisdiction when a defendant has incompetent representation, as it does when there is a physical absence of counsel at trial?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED Can a trial court lose its jurisdiction when a defendant who : has incompetent representation, that is established under prevailing Sixth Amendment standards, in the same way as a court loses its jurisdiction when there was a physical absence of counsel at trial, and if so, did the court in Mr. Thompson's case lose its jurisdiction over him by his counsel providing ~ incompetent representation? Case law from this Court seems to suggest that a court can lose its jurisdiction over a defendant in both scenarios, and the Alaska Court of Appeals refused to acknowledge this, in violation of the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the United States Constitution, and in turn, violating Mr. Thompson's due process right, under the Fourteenth Amendment. ’ i

Docket Entries

2022-02-22
Petition DENIED.
2022-01-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/18/2022.
2022-01-06
Waiver of right of respondent Alaska to respond filed.
2021-12-13
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 24, 2022)

Attorneys

Alaska
Eric Alan RingsmuthState of Alaska, Office of Criminal Appeals, Respondent
Carl Thompson
Carl K. Thompson — Petitioner