No. 22-5244

Charles M. Torrence v. Hazel Peterson, Warden

Lower Court: Tenth Circuit
Docketed: 2022-08-01
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: constitutional-right criminal-procedure critical-stage due-process legal-representation mental-competency right-to-counsel sixth-amendment statewide-importance
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2022-09-28
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a mental competency hearing is a critical stage of a criminal prosecution requiring representation by counsel under the Sixth Amendment

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ONE: Whether it is of statewide, and even nationwide importance, for the United States Supreme Court to declare definitively whether a mental competency hearing harbors "significant consequences" for a criminal defendant which makes it a "critical stage" in the criminal prosecution requiring representation by counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution? , TWO: If the answer to ONE is yes, did the state of Kansas deny . Charles M. Torrence his Sixth Amendment constitutional right to .-.° counsel at his competency hearing? Pe 4 -ii:

Docket Entries

2022-10-03
Petition DENIED.
2022-09-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/28/2022.
2022-08-25
Waiver of right of respondent Peterson, Warden to respond filed.
2022-06-24
Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 31, 2022)

Attorneys

Charles M. Torrence
Charles M. Torrence — Petitioner
Charles M. Torrence — Petitioner
Peterson, Warden
Brant M. LaueSolicitor General of Kansas, Respondent
Brant M. LaueSolicitor General of Kansas, Respondent