No. 24-213

Willis Franklin v. California

Lower Court: California
Docketed: 2024-08-27
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: client-autonomy counsel-of-choice fourteenth-amendment mccoy-v-louisiana sixth-amendment trial-continuance
Key Terms:
DueProcess FifthAmendment Jurisdiction JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2024-09-30
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Was petitioner denied his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to retained counsel of choice and client autonomy when the trial court failed to continue the trial during the absence of co-counsel and did not advise him of his right to make final decisions about testifying?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Was petitioner denied his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to retained counsel of choice when the trial court failed to continue the trial during the absence of one of petitioner’s co-counsel? Was petitioner denied his Sixth Amendment right to “client autonomy” under McCoy v. Louisiana, 584 U.S. 414, 138 S. Ct. 1500, 200 L. Ed. 2d 82 (2018), in not being advised that he had the final say in whether or not to testify even if this was against the advice of his attorneys? LIST OF ALL PARTIES Petitioner WILLIS FRANKLIN. Respondent PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. il

Docket Entries

2024-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2024-09-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/30/2024.
2024-09-03
Waiver of California of right to respond submitted.
2024-09-03
Waiver of right of respondent California to respond filed.
2024-08-23
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 26, 2024)

Attorneys

California
Julia Yeang-Ha JeCalifornia Attorney General's Office, Respondent
Julia Yeang-Ha JeCalifornia Attorney General's Office, Respondent
Willis Franklin
Paul Gilruth McCarthyLaw Offices of Beles & Beles, Petitioner
Paul Gilruth McCarthyLaw Offices of Beles & Beles, Petitioner