No. 20-6338
James H. Smith v. Brian Cook, Warden
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: aedpa-deference confrontation-clause constitutional-rights criminal-charges deficient-performance federal-claim ineffective-assistance-of-counsel state-court-misconstrue trial-court
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus JusticiabilityDoctri
HabeasCorpus JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2021-01-08
Question Presented (from Petition)
1). Can an attorney demonstrate deficient performance in representing a client while also facing serious criminal charges in the same court.
2). Should a trial court ensure that a defendant understands his confrontation clauses rights before admitting stipulation that violate those rights.
3). Does this Court's decision in Johnson v, Williams , 568 U.S. 289 (2013) require AEDPA deference where the state-court misconstrue the petitioner's argument and did not reach the '''core" of petitioner's federal claim.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Can an attorney demonstrate deficient performance in representing a client while also facing serious criminal charges in the same court
Docket Entries
2021-01-11
Petition DENIED.
2020-12-17
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.
2020-12-09
Waiver of right of respondent Brian Cook to respond filed.
2020-11-06
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 16, 2020)
Attorneys
Brian Cook
Benjamin Michael Flowers — Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, Respondent
James H. Smith
James H. Smith — Petitioner