No. 20-7551
Dennis Roger Bolze v. Warden, FCI Coleman
Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: counsel-deprivation criminal-procedure criminal-proceedings due-process habeas-corpus jurisdiction miscarriage-of-justice right-to-counsel state-law subject-matter-jurisdiction
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2021-06-17
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
QUESTION ONE:
When a State intentionally abandons State law and deprives an individual of counsel
during a critical stage in the criminal proceedings, does the state court lose subject-
matter jurisdiction over the criminal case? and,
QUESTION TWO:
Is 28 U.S.C. §2254' s limit constitutionally valid when its enforcement results in an
individual's detention without a lawful reason, i.e. a valid criminal judgment creating a
fundamental miscarriage of justice in the process?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
When a State intentionally abandons State law and deprives an individual of counsel during a critical stage in the criminal proceedings, does the state court lose subject-matter jurisdiction over the criminal case?
Docket Entries
2021-06-21
Rehearing DENIED.
2021-06-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/17/2021.
2021-04-27
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2021-04-19
Petition DENIED.
2021-04-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/16/2021.
2021-03-29
Waiver of right of respondent Warden, FCI Coleman to respond filed.
2021-03-15
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 23, 2021)
Attorneys
Dennis Roger Bolze
Dennis Roger Bolze — Petitioner
Warden, FCI Coleman
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent