No. 21-7177
Maurice O. Byrd, Jr. v. Raymond Byrd, Warden, et al.
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: abandonment-of-appeal conflict-of-interest habeas-corpus ineffective-assistance-of-counsel post-conviction-relief prejudice structural-error
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2022-04-01
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Structural-error-on-appeal
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW I. Does grossly inadequate representation on appeal by appellate counsel, counsel acting after announcing an actual conflict of interest was the basis to withdraw, and/or abandonment of an appeal amount to a structural error where prejudice can be presumed for habeas corpus and/or state post-conviction relief purposes? 1
Docket Entries
2022-04-04
Petition DENIED.
2022-03-17
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/1/2022.
2022-03-04
Waiver of right of respondent Raymond Byrd, Warden, et al. to respond filed.
2022-01-26
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 25, 2022)
Attorneys
Maurice O. Byrd, Jr.
Gregory D. Smith — Law Office of Gregory D. Smith, Petitioner
Raymond Byrd, Warden, et al.
T. Austin Watkins — Office of Tennessee Attorney General, Respondent