No. 22-5151
James Tyrell Drane v. Michigan
IFP
Tags: 14th-amendment constitutional-interpretation constitutional-law criminal-procedure due-process ex-post-facto fourteenth-amendment retroactive-law statute-of-limitations
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2022-09-28
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the State of Michigan's interpretation of its statute of limitations to revive an expired offense violated the petitioner's 14th Amendment due process rights
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT A STATE LAW'S REVIVAL OF AN EXPIRED LIMITATION PERIOD UNDER ITS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS VIOLATES THE EX POST FACTO ARTICLE, AND A COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF LAW IN A EX POST FACTO MANNER VIOLATES DUE PROCESS. IN PETITIONER'S CASE, THE STATE OF MICHIGAN INTERPRETED ITS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TO REVIVE AN EXPIRED OFFENSE. WAS PETITIONER'S 14TH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS RIGHT VIOLATED? ~
Docket Entries
2022-10-03
Petition DENIED.
2022-09-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/28/2022.
2022-07-05
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 22, 2022)