No. 19-7695
Arturo Delacruz v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: brandishing criminal-procedure group-one-robbery ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel otherwise-used plea-negotiation robbery-offense sentencing-guidelines weapon-enhancement
Latest Conference:
2020-03-20
Question Presented (from Petition)
Because Petitioner did not explicitly admit to facts that would support an "otherwise used" weapon enhancement, as opposed to a "brandishing" weapon enhancement, in connection with the group one robbery, was trial counsel ineffective for failing to negotiate a five level, rather than a six level increase for Group One?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to negotiate a five-level, rather than a six-level increase for Group One?
Docket Entries
2020-03-23
Petition DENIED.
2020-03-05
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/20/2020.
2020-02-27
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-02-12
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 19, 2020)
Attorneys
Arturo Delacruz
Craig S. Leeds — Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent