No. 22-6402
Jesse Johnson, III v. California
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: circuit-split constitutional-rights criminal-procedure ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel plea-bargaining prejudice prejudice-prong prima-facie-showing strickland-standard strickland-v-washington
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2023-01-20
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a defendant's uncontradicted sworn statement that he would have accepted a plea offer but for his counsel's deficient performance is sufficient to make a prima facie showing of prejudice under Strickland v. Washington
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED When a defendant alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to properly advise him regarding the consequences of rejecting a plea offer, is the defendant’s uncontradicted sworn statement that he would have accepted the offer but for his counsel’s deficient performance sufficient, by itself, to make a prima facie showing of prejudice under Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668? -i
Docket Entries
2023-01-23
Petition DENIED
2023-01-23
Petition DENIED.
2023-01-05
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/20/2023.
2022-12-29
Waiver of right of respondent California to respond filed.
2022-12-20
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 27, 2023)
Attorneys
Jesse Johnson III
Jeremy Todd Price — First District Appellate Project, Petitioner
Jeremy Todd Price — First District Appellate Project, Petitioner
People of the State of California
Lynne G. McGinnis — State of California Department of Justice, Respondent
Lynne G. McGinnis — State of California Department of Justice, Respondent