No. 22-176

James Burkhart v. United States

Lower Court: Seventh Circuit
Docketed: 2022-08-29
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: 28-usc-2255 adverse-effect conflict-of-interest counsel-conflict evidentiary-hearing guilty-plea ineffective-assistance post-conviction-relief sixth-amendment
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2022-10-07
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Seventh Circuit's formulation of the adverse effect standard under Cuyler v. Sullivan is too demanding, particularly in the guilty plea context

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

question presented is whether the Seventh Circuit’s formulation of the adverse effect standard—which focuses on the execution of strategies and tactics rather than the lawyer’s overall performance—is too demanding a burden, particularly in the guilty plea context. 2. In Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487 (1962), this Court held that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 requires courts to grant hearings to those who make specific and detailed factual allegations that, even if improbable, would entitle them to relief if true. The second question presented is whether a defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to resolve his claim under Cuyler where the petitioner establishes his trial counsel had a conflict of interest and seeks to prove the conflict “adversely affected” his counsel’s performance.

Docket Entries

2022-10-11
Petition DENIED.
2022-09-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/7/2022.
2022-09-08
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2022-08-24
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 28, 2022)

Attorneys

James Burkhart
John Richard ByrneMaderal Byrne PLLC, Petitioner
John Richard ByrneMaderal Byrne PLLC, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent