No. 23-7584

Quentin M. Salmond v. Pennsylvania

Lower Court: Pennsylvania
Docketed: 2024-05-29
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: brady-claim conspiracy criminal-law due-process newly-discovered-evidence pcra-time-bar retroactivity sentencing third-degree-murder
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2024-09-30
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Is Conspiracy to Commit Third Degree Murder a Non-Cognizable Offense?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Is Conspiracy to Commit Third Degree Murder a Non-Cognizable Offense? _ 2. Can a defendnat be convicted of Conspiracy to commit third degree murder and third degree murder, if he is not the shooter of a victim? 3. Is it Unconstitutional in Pennsylvania, to be senteced to consecutive terms, for a conspiracy and a Third degree murder that stems from the same episode and/or event? — 4, Does a Court violate a petitioner's Constitutional right to Due Process, if it denies a BRADY and/or NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE claim, ) before compelling the commonwealth to provide and/or produce the _ withheld material, when the petitioner has proven that the exculpatory material exist and is in the prosecution's possession? 5. Is it unconstitutional, for the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, to make the rulings in Commonwealth v. Bradley, 261 A.3d; 2021, non ; retroactive? 6. Does the Pennsylvania PCRA one-year time bar violate a petitioner's . Constitutional Rights, when he is a prisoner and a Jayman to the laws?

Docket Entries

2024-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2024-06-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/30/2024.
2024-06-18
Waiver of right of respondent Pennsylvania to respond filed.
2024-05-09
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 28, 2024)

Attorneys

Pennsylvania
Nancy WinkelmanDistrict Attorney's Office, Respondent
Nancy WinkelmanDistrict Attorney's Office, Respondent
Quentin M. Salmond
Quentin M. Salmond — Petitioner
Quentin M. Salmond — Petitioner