No. 18-9521
Christopher Anthony Jones v. Nevada
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: criminal-statute due-process montgomery-v-louisiana retroactivity substantive-rule supreme-court-precedent teague-exception welch-v-united-states
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2019-10-01
Question Presented (from Petition)
Under the new constitutional rule of retroactivity established in Montgomery v. Louisiana and clarified in Welch v. United States, is a state court required under the federal constitution to retroactively apply interpretations of a substantive criminal statute that narrow its scope?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether due process requires the states to retroactively apply a decision narrowing the interpretation of a substantive criminal statute
Docket Entries
2019-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2019-07-18
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-07-12
Waiver of right of respondent Steven S. Owens to respond filed.
2019-05-30
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 3, 2019)
2019-04-05
Application (18A1028) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until May 30, 2019.
2019-04-03
Application (18A1028) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from April 17, 2019 to May 30, 2019, submitted to Justice Kagan.
Attorneys
Christopher Jones
Steven S. Owens
Steven S. Owens — Respondent