No. 19-5053
Brandon M. Hicks v. Renee Baker, Warden, et al.
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 6th-amendment civil-rights constitutional-law constitutional-rights criminal-procedure due-process evidence-admissibility fair-trial ineffective-assistance-of-counsel judicial-conduct plea-bargaining sentencing separation-of-powers sixth-amendment
Latest Conference:
2019-10-01
Question Presented (from Petition)
1) Whethe tn heen o Conion
in context with his intent at sentenciny, is a violatiken of the Separation of
powers doctrine, in the United States Constitution.
2 If the Judgerelied on Suspet evidence in vidlaton of the 5thAmedment
and amendment of the Unt Stats Constution at the Stat Coust Sentencing hearig.
3Whether Petoes Con w te nr the henmet o the Un
constate S
4 hethe ettirs coune ieee h heden t.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the judge's extra language in the judgment of conviction, in context with his conduct at sentencing, is a violation of the Separation of Powers doctrine under the United States Constitution
Docket Entries
2019-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2019-07-25
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-07-16
Waiver of right of respondents Renee Baker, et al. to respond filed.
2019-06-24
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 2, 2019)
Attorneys
Brandon M. Hicks
Brandon M. Hicks — Petitioner
Renee Baker, et al.
Heather Diane Procter — Respondent