No. 20-6347
Christopher Mikelinich v. United States
Relisted (2)IFP
Tags: criminal-law criminal-procedure due-process felony-possession knowing-plea mens-rea plain-error plea-agreement plea-bargaining rehaif-v-united-states sentencing-elements
Latest Conference:
2021-06-17
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
Where a defendant claims his plea was not knowing and intelligent because he was unaware of all the elements of the offense, does it matter whether he would have pled guilty anyway?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Where a defendant claims his plea was not knowing and intelligent because he was unaware of all the elements of the offense, does it matter whether he would have pled guilty anyway?
Docket Entries
2021-06-21
Petition DENIED.
2021-06-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/17/2021.
2021-02-04
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/19/2021.
2021-01-15
Memorandum of respondent United States filed.
2020-12-11
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 19, 2021.
2020-12-10
Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 17, 2020 to January 19, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-11-06
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 17, 2020)
Attorneys
Christopher Mikelinich, et al.
Steven Y. Yurowitz — Newman & Greenberg, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent