No. 23-7329

Alrick Brown v. Ricky D. Dixon, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2024-04-29
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 5th-amendment 6th-amendment constitutional-rights due-process fourteenth-amendment ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel premeditated-murder self-defense sixth-amendment
Key Terms:
DueProcess FourthAmendment HabeasCorpus Securities
Latest Conference: 2024-06-06
Question Presented (AI Summary)

whether-a-state-criminal-appellant-has-constitutional-right-to-fair-trial

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW I. The United States Supreme Court has held that a state criminal Appellant has Constitutional Right to a fair trial guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Evidence Was Inconsistent With Appellant Claim Of Self Defense Evidence Was Insufficient To Prove Premeditated Murder. Il. Whether a Appellant who is serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole is denied his constitutional rights to counsel where counsel's representation fell outside that range of reasonably professional assistance for: Misadvising Appellant Not To Testify Violating Appellant’s 5" 6" And 14" Amendment Right’s Under Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel And The United States Constitution, And Article 1, Section 12, Of The Florida Constitution For Not Objecting To The Jury Instruction That Was Erroneous And Essentially Vitiated Appellant’s Claim Of Self-Defense Violating Appellant’s 5 6% And 14" Amendment Right’s Under Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel And The United States Constitution, And Article 1, Section 12, Of The Florida Constitution. Trial Counsel Was Ineffective For Abandoning Stand Your Ground Motion Violating Appellant’s 5" 6™ And 14 Amendment Right’s Under Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel And The United States Constitution, And Article 1, Section 12, Of The Florida Constitution. The Cumulative Impact of Trial Counsel’s Multiple Errors Deprived Appellant of a Fair Trial in Violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution Whether it’s proper to deny a claim without holding an evidentiary when the record clearly does : not refute the claim? . INTERESTED PARTIES CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS Appellant certifies the following persons may have an interest in the outcome of this case: . Abualown, Lubna, Trial Attorney Bloom, Beth, United States District Judge Burke, Patrick B., Appellate Counsel Conner, JJ., Judge Fourth District Court of Appeal Gerber, C.J., Judge Fourth District Court of Appeal, Moody, Ashley Y., Florida Attorney General, Napodano, Luke R., Attorney Florida Department of Corrections, Perry, Donna M., Assistant Attorney General Taylor, Carol Y., Judge Fourth District Court of Appeal, Usan, Micheal A., Circuit Court Judge,

Docket Entries

2024-06-10
Petition DENIED.
2024-05-22
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/6/2024.
2024-05-16
Waiver of right of respondent Dixon, Sec., FL DOC to respond filed.
2024-02-29
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 29, 2024)

Attorneys

Alrick Brown
Alrick Brown — Petitioner
Alrick Brown — Petitioner
Dixon, Sec., FL DOC
Celia A. Terenzio — Respondent
Celia A. Terenzio — Respondent