No. 20-6879
IFP
Tags: due-process eighth-amendment hall-v-florida intellectual-disability montgomery-v-louisiana postconviction-procedure retroactive-application retroactivity substantive-rule
Latest Conference:
2021-05-20
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Whether Florida's postconviction procedures governing intellectual disability claims fail to vindicate defendants' substantive Eighth Amendment rights, such that it constitutes a violation of due process?
2. Whether this Court's decision in Hall v. Florida, 134 S. Ct. 1986 (2014), announced a new substantive rule, such that it must be applied retroactively by state courts under Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016).
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether Florida's postconviction procedures governing intellectual-disability claims fail to vindicate defendants' substantive Eighth-Amendment rights, such that it constitutes a violation of due-process
Docket Entries
2021-05-24
Petition DENIED.
2021-05-05
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/20/2021.
2021-04-29
Reply of petitioner John Freeman filed.
2021-04-19
Brief of respondent Florida in opposition filed.
2021-02-05
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 19, 2021.
2021-02-04
Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 16, 2021 to April 19, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-01-11
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 16, 2021)
Attorneys
Florida
Amitabh Agarwal — Office of the Attorney General, Respondent
John Freeman