No. 20-5327
Thyochus A. Huggins v. California
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 6th-amendment appointment-of-counsel civil-rights due-process faretta-v-california self-representation
Latest Conference:
2020-09-29
Question Presented (from Petition)
AkH^A iKmA- Qx\& ..jhavrilAfat..V. C&Vtfbv-Y\io . ^7? nc,,_
, . iiaci^Ly q>p ,..^ol,jba.OL\..^iMir\ , UV\ft^\VO< iWt Jftju JkJ^\AjQc4r
v^sL^>\ciz_^m4- Vnuyn^lVP a^oiry \£ H^_ . AmAsA
t . „yjiik._Louv^£>2^t ^ _^ilan c\ i±i oj^bdt
JC^ppDtniitoaCLhT- 6^. tonbiU &Y\ Pjuin4\OOP^
~c£Lm
£Xi
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did the trial court violate Petitioner's rights under the Sixth Amendment as set forth in Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) when it told Petitioner that he would not be allowed to represent himself again if he decided to proceed with counsel and forced the appointment of counsel against Petitioner's will?
Docket Entries
2020-10-05
Petition DENIED.
2020-09-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
2020-09-02
Waiver of right of respondent California to respond filed.
2020-07-17
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 11, 2020)
Attorneys
California
Thyochus A. Huggins
Thyochus A. Huggins — Petitioner