No. 21-7335
IFP
Tags: actual-innocence brady-violation death-penalty due-process habeas habeas-corpus state-procedural-law
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess HabeasCorpus Patent JusticiabilityDoctri
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess HabeasCorpus Patent JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2022-06-09
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Is the right to due process violated when a death-sentenced individual is barred from developing substantial habeas claims by the arbitrary application of state procedural law?
2. Is the fact that the State successfully suppressed Brady material for two decades a legitimate basis for denying a habeas applicant, who is actually innocent, the right to be heard?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Is the right to due process violated when a death-sentenced individual is barred from developing substantial habeas claims by the arbitrary application of state procedural law?
Docket Entries
2022-06-13
Petition DENIED.
2022-05-25
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/9/2022.
2022-05-24
Reply of petitioner Charles Flores filed. (Distributed)
2022-05-11
Brief of respondent Texas in opposition filed.
2022-04-05
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including May 11, 2022.
2022-04-04
Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 11, 2022 to May 11, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-03-04
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 11, 2022)
2021-12-15
Application (21A219) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until March 4, 2022.
2021-12-09
Application (21A219) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from January 4, 2022 to March 5, 2022, submitted to Justice Alito.
Attorneys
Charles Flores
Gretchen S. Sween — Sween Law, Petitioner
Texas
Michele O'Brien Yeatts — Dallas County District Attorney, Respondent