No. 19-5255
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 28-usc-2255 appellate-review court-of-appeals criminal-procedure due-process habeas-corpus ineffective-assistance judicial-error per-se-ineffectiveness procedural-default second-circuit section-2255 sixth-amendment strickland-v-washington trial-counsel
Latest Conference:
2019-10-01
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Whether it was error by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, to affirm the lower court's denial of Petitioner's Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 which argued that Petitioner had received ineffective assistance on the part of his trial counsel.
2. Whether the ineffectiveness of trial counsel was so negligent that it amounts to per se ineffectiveness
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit erred in affirming the lower court's denial of Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel
Docket Entries
2019-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2019-08-15
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-08-07
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2019-06-01
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 19, 2019)
Attorneys
Frank Lobacz
Frank Lobacz — Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent