No. 19-6709
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: constitutional-provisions criminal-procedure criminal-procedure-rule-35 disclosure ineffective-assistance-of-counsel motion-for-new-trial new-trial prosecution rule-16 rule-16-disclosure rule-33 rule-33-motion-for-new-trial rule-35
Latest Conference:
2020-01-10
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether the Court of Appeals misconstrued Rule 35(c)(3)(VII), Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure, in declining to consider a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel raised by the putatively ineffective attorney in Rule 33 motion for new trial and submitted an affidavit in which he swore that he made a mistake in the remedy he requested for a Rule 16 disclosure of prosecution?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Court of Appeals misconstrued Rule 35(c)(3)(VID, Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure
Docket Entries
2020-01-13
Petition DENIED.
2019-12-05
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020.
2019-11-27
Waiver of right of respondent Colorado to respond filed.
2019-11-14
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 23, 2019)
Attorneys
Adam L. Acosta
Adam L. Acosta — Petitioner
Colorado
L. Andrew Cooper — Office of the Colorado Attorney General, Respondent