No. 21-603
Amici (1)
Tags: automatic-reversal boykin-advisement boykin-v-alabama constitutional-rights due-process fourteenth-amendment guilty-plea plea-review presumption-of-prejudice standard-of-review
Latest Conference:
2022-02-18
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution
prohibit review of the entire record to determine
whether a guilty plea was knowingly,
intelligently and voluntarily entered?
2. Should this Court grant certiorari to resolve the
conflict among the courts on whether the failure
to strictly adhere to the advisement of rights in
Boykin should result in the automatic reversal
of a guilty plea?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does the Due Process Clause prohibit review of the entire record to determine whether a guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered?
Docket Entries
2022-02-22
Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent GRANTED.
2022-02-22
Petition DENIED.
2022-01-12
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/18/2022.
2022-01-11
Reply of petitioner Ohio filed. (Distributed)
2021-12-23
Brief of respondent George Brinkman in opposition filed.
2021-12-23
Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent George Brinkman.
2021-11-12
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 23, 2021.
2021-11-10
Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 26, 2021 to December 23, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-11-09
Brief amicus curiae of Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association filed.
2021-10-19
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 26, 2021)
Attorneys
George Brinkman
Jeffrey M. Gamso — Law Office of Jeffrey M. Gamso, Respondent
Ohio
Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association