No. 18-7114
Earle D. Williams v. California
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: aggravated-kidnapping asportation constitutional-vagueness criminal-law dimaya-precedent due-process kidnapping penal-code sessions-v-dimaya statutory-interpretation vagueness vagueness-doctrine
Latest Conference:
2019-02-15
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether California Penal Code Section 209(b) is unconstitutionally vague under Sessions v. Dimaya, 584 U.S. ___, 138 S.Ct. 1204 (2018), as applied to petitioner's conviction for aggravated kidnapping based on asportation.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether California Penal Code Section 209(b) is unconstitutionally vague under Sessions v. Dimaya
Docket Entries
2019-02-19
Petition DENIED.
2019-01-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/15/2019.
2019-01-02
Waiver of right of respondent California to respond filed.
2018-12-14
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 18, 2019)
2018-10-12
Application (18A384) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until December 15, 2018.
2018-10-04
Application (18A384) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from October 16, 2018 to December 15, 2018, submitted to The Chief Justice.
Attorneys
Earle Williams
Kieran Daniel Cruz Manjarrez — sole practitioner, Petitioner
People of the State of California
David Andries Voet — CA Dept. of Justice-Office of the AG, Respondent