No. 21-1099
Thomas Clayton Steres v. Kevin Curran, Warden, et al.
Response Waived
Tags: cell-phone-search certificate-of-appealability constitutional-rights criminal-procedure fourth-amendment habeas-corpus ineffective-assistance plea-bargaining right-to-counsel sixth-amendment
Key Terms:
FourthAmendment HabeasCorpus
FourthAmendment HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2022-03-25
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Whether Thomas Steres received ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment?
2. Whether the search of Mr. Steres' cell phone was illegal under the Fourth Amendment?
3. Whether the Ninth Circuit's denial of a Certificate of Appealability was unreasonable where Mr. Steres demonstrated a substantial showing of the denial of a Constitutional right?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether Thomas Steres received ineffective assistance of counsel
Docket Entries
2022-03-28
Petition DENIED.
2022-03-09
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/25/2022.
2022-03-07
Waiver of right of respondent Kevin Curran, Warden to respond filed.
2022-02-05
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 10, 2022)
Attorneys
Kevin Curran, Warden
Amy S. Pignatella Cain — Arizona Attorney General's Office, Respondent
Thomas Clayton Steres
Anders V. Rosenquist — Rosenquist & Associates, Petitioner