No. 19-5949
Marcelino Martinez v. United States
IFP
Tags: criminal-procedure criminal-procedure-rule-11 district-court federal-rules-of-criminal-procedure guilty-plea plain-error plea-bargaining plea-negotiations rule-11 substantial-rights
Latest Conference:
2020-01-10
Question Presented (from Petition)
1) When a district court violates Rule 11(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure by interfering in plea negotiations, can a
defendant ordinarily satisfy the substantial rights prong of plain
error where the defendant pleaded guilty on the very same day as
the Rule 11(c)(1) violation?
2) Is a defendant required to demonstrate that a district court's Rule
11(c)(1) violation "likely" caused him to plead guilty in order to
satisfy the substantial rights prong of plain error?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
when-district-court-violates-rule-11(c)(1)-of-federal-rules-of-criminal-procedure
Docket Entries
2020-01-13
Petition DENIED.
2019-12-05
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020.
2019-11-15
Brief of respondent United States of America in opposition filed.
2019-10-09
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 15, 2019.
2019-10-08
Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 16, 2019 to November 15, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-09-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 16, 2019)
Attorneys
Marcelino Martinez
William Reynolds Biggs — WILLIAM R. BIGGS, PLLC, Petitioner
United States of America
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent