No. 21-5377
Alexander Ascencio v. Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
IFP
Tags: due-process effective-assistance-of-counsel fourteenth-amendment habeas-corpus jackson-v-virginia sixth-amendment sufficiency-of-evidence watson-v-state
Latest Conference:
2021-10-15
Question Presented (from Petition)
WHETHER THE LOWER COURT DENIED PETITIONER DUE PROCESS, WHEN THE COURT DID NOT CONSIDERED THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE ON THIS CASE WHICH WAS A CRUCIAL ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE?
WHETHER PETITIONER WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AS GUARANTEED UNDER THE ARTICLE I SECTION 10 OF TEXAS CONSTITUTION AND UNDER THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE THE LOWER COURTS IMPROPERLY APPLIED THE STRICKLAND V WASHINGTON STANDARD ON THIS CASE AT BAR?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the lower court denied petitioner due process
Docket Entries
2021-10-18
Petition DENIED.
2021-09-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/15/2021.
2021-07-20
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 15, 2021)
Attorneys
Alexander Ascencio
Alexander Ascencio — Petitioner