No. 20-6332
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: concurrent-sentences consecutive-sentences constitutional-interpretation criminal-procedure ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel prejudice sentencing-prejudice sixth-amendment strickland strickland-standard
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference:
2021-01-08
Question Presented (from Petition)
Did the Kentucky Court of Appeals correctly interpret the Sixth Amendment in holding Petitioner "cannot demonstrate prejudice under Strickland", when counsel's ineffectiveness resulted in Petitioner's sentences being ran consecutively when they would have otherwise been concurrent?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Kentucky Court of Appeals correctly interpreted the Sixth Amendment in holding the petitioner cannot demonstrate prejudice under Strickland when counsel's ineffectiveness resulted in the petitioner's sentences being run consecutively when they would have otherwise been concurrent
Docket Entries
2021-01-11
Petition DENIED.
2020-12-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.
2020-12-04
Waiver of right of respondent Kentucky to respond filed.
2020-10-14
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 16, 2020)
Attorneys
Cecil Salyers
Cecil Salyers — Petitioner
Kentucky
James C. Shackelford — Kemtucky Attorney General, Respondent