No. 19-8881
George A. Foote, Jr. v. Indiana
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 14th-amendment anders-procedure appellate-procedure counsel-withdrawal davis-hatton-procedure direct-appeal due-process state-procedure
Latest Conference:
2020-09-29
Question Presented (from Petition)
After appellate counsel opted to utilize a Davis-Hatton procedure, but failed to reinstate
the direct appeal, did the Indiana appellate court overstep its authority in supporting counsel
depriving a direct appeal as of right, without following Anders or equal state procedure as
required by the 14th Amendment due process clause, when, the state provides no Anders
withdraw, but mandates that all appeals as of right be fully briefed?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did the Indiana appellate court overstep its authority in supporting counsel depriving a direct appeal as of right, without following Anders or equal state procedure as required by the 14th Amendment due process clause?
Docket Entries
2020-10-05
Petition DENIED.
2020-08-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
2020-07-29
Waiver of right of respondent Indiana to respond filed.
2020-06-09
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 3, 2020)
Attorneys
George A. Foote
George A. Foote Jr. — Petitioner
Indiana
Stephen Richard Creason — Respondent