No. 19-6259
Keino S. Chrichlow v. Dana Metzger, Warden, et al.
IFP
Tags: abandonment-of-counsel appellate-procedure appellate-process civil-rights constitutional-rights court-appointed-counsel direct-appeal due-process habeas-corpus indigent-defendant ineffective-assistance right-to-counsel standing
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2019-12-13
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. whether or not an indigent defendant is entitled to equitable tolling, where he was in fact denied the right to challenge his sentence and convictions by way of Direct Appeal, based on the abandonment of his court appointed counsel?
2. Does an indigent defendant receive the united states Constitutional guarantee of Due process, Where he is denied Counsel and evidentiary hearings during the appellate process, as a scheme, in state Court, Federal District Court, and the Federal Court of Appeals?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
whether-an-indigent-defendant-is-entitled-to-equitable-toll-where-he-was-denied-the-right-to-challenge-his-sentence-and-convictions-by-way-of-direct-appeal
Docket Entries
2019-12-16
Petition DENIED.
2019-11-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/13/2019.
2019-10-06
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 12, 2019)
2019-08-07
Application (19A152) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until October 6, 2019.
2019-07-29
Application (19A152) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from August 7, 2019 to October 6, 2019, submitted to Justice Alito.
Attorneys
Keino S. Chrichlow
Keino S. Chrichlow — Petitioner