No. 22-7589
Troy G. Saxton v. Jay Forshey, Warden
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 28-usc-2253 brown-v-ohio certificate-of-appealability double-jeopardy drug-possession habeas habeas-corpus reasonable-jurists spatial-units
Key Terms:
FifthAmendment HabeasCorpus
FifthAmendment HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2023-09-26
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a habeas petitioner satisfies his burden under 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2) for the issuance of a certificate of appealability
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Whether a habeas petitioner satisfies his burden under 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2) forthe issuance of a certificate of appealability when he demonstrates that “reasonable jurists” could debate whether state authorities “carved up” a single drug possession offense into multiple spatial units in a manner contrary to Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 (1977) for purposes of subjecting him to multiple punishments for the same crime in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause ? i
Docket Entries
2023-10-02
Petition DENIED.
2023-06-15
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023.
2023-06-08
Waiver of right of respondent Jay Forshey to respond filed.
2023-05-15
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 20, 2023)
Attorneys
Jay Forshey
Michael Jason Hendershot — Ohio Attorney General's Office, Respondent
Michael Jason Hendershot — Ohio Attorney General's Office, Respondent