No. 18-6132
Marlon Oliver v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 2011 plea offer not requiring cooperation and def criminal-procedure criminal-procedure-ineffective-assistance-of-couns due-process ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel missouri-v-frye plea-bargaining plea-offer right-to-counsel sixth-amendment
Latest Conference:
2018-10-26
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. WHETHER THERE IS A REASONABLE PROBABILITY THAT THE COURT BELOW WOULD VACATE PETITIONER'S CONVICTION, GIVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER THIS COURT'S DECISION IN MISSOURI V. FRYE, 182 L.Ed.2d 379, 566 U.S. 134 (2012) UPON CONFIRMING THE JULY 15, 2011 PLEA OFFER DID NOT REQUIRE COOPERATION AND DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO INFORM PETITIONER OF IT?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether there is a reasonable probability that the court below would vacate petitioner's conviction, giving the opportunity to consider this Court's decision in Missouri v. Frye, 182 L.Ed.2d 379, 566 U.S. 134 (2012) upon confirming the July 15, 2011 plea offer did not require cooperation and defense counsel failed to inform petitioner of it?
Docket Entries
2018-10-29
Petition DENIED.
2018-10-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/26/2018.
2018-10-03
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2017-12-04
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 29, 2018)
Attorneys
Marlon Oliver
Marlon Oliver — Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent