No. 19-5987
Ronald Richard Brown v. Washington
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: constitutional-interpretation double-jeopardy due-process federal-sentencing-guidelines judicial-vindictiveness north-carolina-v-pearce presumption-of-vindictiveness reversed-convictions sentencing sentencing-guidelines sentencing-reform-act state-courts supreme-court washington-state
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2019-11-15
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Can the Washington State Courts refuse to adhere to this Courts holding in North Carolina v. Pearce?
2. Since Washington State's Sentencing Reform Act (SRA) precludes a sentencing court from considering reversed convictions when imposing a sentence, which parallels the holding in North Carolina v. Pearce (395 U.S. at 721), can the State Courts circumvent both the SRA and United States Supreme Courts ruling by adhering to an inapplicable Federal Sentencing Guideline in order to mask the presumption of vindictiveness?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Washington State Courts can refuse to adhere to the Supreme Court's holding in North Carolina v. Pearce
Docket Entries
2019-11-18
Petition DENIED.
2019-10-31
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/15/2019.
2019-10-10
Waiver of right of respondent Washington to respond filed.
2019-09-09
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 18, 2019)
Attorneys
Ronald R. Brown
Ronald Richard Brown — Petitioner
Washington
Seth Aaron Fine — Snohomish County Prosecutor's Office, Respondent