No. 23-5003
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: criminal-procedure duty-to-consult effective-assistance-of-counsel ineffective-assistance notice-of-appeal post-conviction-relief roe-v-flores-ortega sixth-amendment trial-counsel
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2023-09-26
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does this Court's decision in Roe v. Flores-Ortega establish a rebuttable presumption of Sixth Amendment duty to consult client post-conviction?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Does this Court's decision in Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000), establish at least a rebuttable presumption that trial counsel has a Sixth Amendment duty to meaningfully consult with a client following a jury trial conviction to determine whether the client wishes to file a notice of appeal and start the appeal process?
Docket Entries
2023-10-02
Petition DENIED.
2023-07-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023.
2023-07-06
Waiver of right of respondent Kansas to respond filed.
2023-06-26
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 31, 2023)
Attorneys
Kansas
Anthony John Powell — Office of the Kansas Attomey General, Respondent
Anthony John Powell — Office of the Kansas Attomey General, Respondent
Monty Banister
Randall Lee Hodgkinson — Kansas Appellate Defender Off., Petitioner
Randall Lee Hodgkinson — Kansas Appellate Defender Off., Petitioner