No. 18-8021

Charles R. Baker v. Mark S. Inch, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2019-02-20
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: anti-terrorism-and-effective-death-penalty-act anti-terrorism-effective-death-penalty-act constitutional-rights criminal-procedure due-process effective-assistance-of-counsel first-amendment habeas-corpus ineffective-assistance-of-counsel newly-discovered-evidence sixth-amendment statute-of-limitations
Latest Conference: 2019-04-18
Question Presented (from Petition)

Whether thenewly discovered evidence presented
to the lower Court's was sufficient to toll the one year
statute of limitation set-forth in title 28 u.s.c 2244
of the Anti-Terrorism Effective Death Penalty Act?(A.E.D.P.A)

Whe ther the Constitutionality of Title 28 u.S.c.$ 2244 (A.ED.R.A
One year statute of limitation on Habeas Corpus (2zs4) should
be revisited by this Court?

Whether Petitioner was denied his Sixth Amendment Constitutional
"Allcritical stages of trial procedings?

Whether Title 28 u.S.c. 2244(A.F.D.P.Ainhibits the filing of
legitimate Federal 2254 & 2255 Petitions for Writs of Habeas
Corpus filed by prose inmates: In viclation of the First
Amendment of the United States lonstitutien: IAInd to
Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances".

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the newly discovered evidence presented to the lower Courts was sufficient to toll the one year Statute of Limitation set forth in the 48 U.S.C § 2244 of the Anti-Terrorism Effective Death Penalty Act (A.E.D.P.A.)

Docket Entries

2019-04-22
Petition DENIED.
2019-04-03
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/18/2019.
2018-10-29
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 22, 2019)

Attorneys

Charles R. Baker
Charles Robert Baker — Petitioner