No. 21-7763

Randolph Ashford v. South Carolina

Lower Court: South Carolina
Docketed: 2022-05-03
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 14th-amendment 5th-amendment 6th-amendment amendment-rights constitutional-rights court-jurisdiction criminal-procedure due-process indictment indictment-procedure subject-matter-jurisdiction
Key Terms:
DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2022-06-02
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Was Petitioner's 5th, 6th, and 14th, Amendment Rights of the U.S. Constitution, Due Process Rights violated

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED | | Was Petitioner's 5th, 6th, and 14th, Amendment Rights of the U.S. Constitution, Due Process Rights violated, by the procedural defects in the establishing of the indictment, not being filed with the Clerk of Court, Prior to presentment to the Grand Jury. Was the Court of General Sessions, by the laws of the State/ Federal Constitution, legally indict Petitioner in the Court | of Common Pleas on April 2007 and May of 2007, Terms of Court. | Was the Court of General Sessions by the laws of the State/ Federal Constitution legally indict Petitioner in the Court of Common Pleas in August, 2008 and September 2009, Terms of Court. Did the State of South Carolina, need to re-indict Petitioner, after the not guilty verdict, for indictment No. 2007-GS-401940, So that trial court could retain subject matter jurisdiction. Did Petitioner's indictment No. 2007-GS-40-020001, need be resubmission to the grand jury for amendment. Iv.

Docket Entries

2022-06-06
Petition DENIED.
2022-05-18
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/2/2022.
2022-05-06
Waiver of right of respondent South Carolina to respond filed.
2022-04-26
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 2, 2022)

Attorneys

Randolph Ashford
Randolph Ashford — Petitioner
Randolph Ashford — Petitioner
South Carolina
D. Russell Barlow IISouth Carolina Attorney General's Office, Respondent
D. Russell Barlow IISouth Carolina Attorney General's Office, Respondent