No. 19-7514
Ekanem Kurfreobon Essien v. Suzanne M. Peery, Warden
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: constitutional-rights criminal-procedure criminal-street-gang due-process habeas-corpus ninth-circuit-review reasonable-doubt sentencing-enhancement street-terrorism-enforcement-and-prevention-act sufficiency-of-evidence
Latest Conference:
2020-02-28
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether the Ninth Circuit erred when it denied petitioner Ekanem Kufreobon Essien's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition based on its conclusion that his constitutional right to have every element proven beyond a reasonable doubt was not violated by the imposition of the California gang enhancement at sentencing, where the evidence was insufficient to establish: (1) the existence of a criminal street gang within the meaning of the Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act, Cal. Penal Code § 186.22; and (2) that petitioner acted in association with that same criminal street gang.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in denying petitioner's habeas petition
Docket Entries
2020-03-02
Petition DENIED.
2020-02-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/28/2020.
2020-02-03
Waiver of right of respondent Suzanne M. Peery to respond filed.
2020-01-29
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 2, 2020)
Attorneys
Ekanem Essien
Mara Kapelovitz Goldman — Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
Suzanne M. Peery
David M. Baskind — California Department of Justice, Respondent