No. 25-6654
Kyle Shirakawa Handley v. Christopher Pierce, Warden
Response RequestedResponse WaivedIFP
Tags: california-law criminal-procedure due-process notice-requirement sentencing-enhancement sixth-amendment
Latest Conference:
N/A
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Does the California Supreme Court's 1936 holding that a defendant's right to notice does not apply to facts which merely "increase the penalty" violate the Sixth Amendment?
2. Can constitutionally adequate notice of enhanced charges be given at the end of trial, or must notice be given in a manner that affords defendants an opportunity to prepare before trial?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does the California Supreme Court's 1936 holding that a defendant's right to notice does not apply to facts which merely 'increase the penalty' violate the Sixth Amendment?
Docket Entries
2026-03-13
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including May 1, 2026.
2026-03-12
Motion of Christopher Pierce, Warden for an extension of time submitted.
2026-03-12
Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 1, 2026 to May 1, 2026, submitted to The Clerk.
2026-03-02
Response Requested. (Due April 1, 2026)
2026-02-26
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/20/2026.
2026-02-19
Waiver of right of respondent Christopher Pierce, Warden to respond filed.
2026-02-19
Waiver of right of respondent Christopher Pierce, Warden to respond and notice of a directly related case under Rule 14.1(b)(iii) filed.
2025-12-19
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 23, 2026)
Attorneys
Christopher Pierce, Warden
Kyle Handley
Clifford Gardner — Law Office of Cliff Gardner, Petitioner