No. 21-7647

Lloyd Brice v. California

Lower Court: California
Docketed: 2022-04-19
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: conflict-of-interest due-process fair-trial first-degree-murder ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel motion-for-new-trial right-to-counsel right-to-fair-trial
Key Terms:
DueProcess TradeSecret Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2022-05-12
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Did the Supreme Court err in failing to rule that the denial of the Motion for New Trial due to trial counsel's conflict of interest violated Petitioner's rights to counsel, to a fair trial, and to due process of law?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Did the Supreme Court err in failing to rule that the denial of the Motion for New Trial due to trial counsel’s conflict of interest violated Petitioner’s rights to counsel, to a fair trial, and to due process of law? 2. Did the Supreme Court err in failing to rule that the denial of the Motion for New Trial due to ineffective assistance of counsel and on the basis of evidence of Petitioner’s actual innocence violated Petitioner’s rights to present a defense, to a fair trial, and to due process of law? 3. Should the Supreme Court have determined that the evidence was insufficient to prove that Petitioner acted with premeditation and deliberation and therefore Petitioner’s conviction of first degree murder was in violation of Petitioner’s right to due process of law? 2

Docket Entries

2022-05-16
Petition DENIED.
2022-04-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/12/2022.
2022-04-20
Waiver of right of respondent California to respond filed.
2022-04-13
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 19, 2022)

Attorneys

California
Darren Kyle IndermillCalifornia Attorney General's Office, Respondent
Darren Kyle IndermillCalifornia Attorney General's Office, Respondent
Lloyd Brice
Aaron SpolinSpolin Law P.C., Petitioner
Aaron SpolinSpolin Law P.C., Petitioner