No. 18-6023
Lamar Atu Blackwell v. Matthew Hansen, Warden, et al.
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 28-usc-2254 due-process fourteenth-amendment habeas-corpus postconviction-procedure postconviction-review prosecutorial-misconduct strickland-standard strickland-v-washington swarthout-v-cooke unreasonable-application webb-v-texas
Latest Conference:
2018-10-12
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether this Court's opinion in Webb v Texas, 409 U.S. 95, 93 S. Ct. 351, 34 L. Ed. 2d 330 (1972) applies to prosecutors as well as judges;
Whether the unreasonable application standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) is distinguishable from the Strickland standard, and whether a petitioner must address both prongs of Strickland in order for unreasonable application to be found;
Whether this Court's holding in Swarthout v Cooke, 562 U.S. 216 (2009) implies that a State's failure to follow its own postconviction procedural rules can violate due process.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether this Court's opinion in Webb v. Texas applies to prosecutors as well as judges
Docket Entries
2018-10-15
Petition DENIED.
2018-09-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/12/2018.
2018-09-24
Waiver of right of respondents Hansen, Warden, et al. to respond filed.
2018-05-03
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 18, 2018)
Attorneys
Hansen, Warden, et al.
L. Andrew Cooper — Office of the Colorado Attorney General, Respondent
Lamar Atu Blackwell
Lamar A. Blackwell — Petitioner