No. 22-1070
Stanford James Stelle, III v. California
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2)
Tags: competency competency-hearing criminal-defendant criminal-procedure drope-v-missouri due-process fourteenth-amendment mental-competency mental-incompetence pate-v-robinson successive-review
Latest Conference:
2023-09-26
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
Does California's heightened standard for a successive competency hearing violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does California's heightened standard for a successive competency hearing violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Docket Entries
2023-10-02
Petition DENIED.
2023-08-09
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023.
2023-08-04
Reply of petitioner Stanford James Stelle, III filed.
2023-07-26
Brief of respondent California in opposition filed.
2023-06-15
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including July 26, 2023.
2023-06-13
Motion to extend the time to file a response from June 26, 2023 to July 26, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
2023-05-25
Response Requested. (Due June 26, 2023)
2023-05-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/8/2023.
2023-05-18
Waiver of right of respondent California to respond filed.
2023-05-02
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 5, 2023)
Attorneys
California
Scott Alan Taryle — Department of Justice, Office of the AG, Respondent
Stanford James Stelle
Rabea Jamal Zayed III — Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Petitioner