No. 21-7536
Ramonta Forte v. Joe A. Lizarraga, Warden
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 6th-amendment counsel-of-choice discretion due-process federal-law habeas-corpus right-to-counsel sentencing
Latest Conference:
2022-05-26
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY DETERMINED THAT THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL AT SENTENCING IS NOT CLEARLY ESTABLISHED FEDERAL LAW?
2. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY DETERMINED THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING PETITIONER THE RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED BY HIS COUNSEL OF CHOICE AT TRIAL?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the right to counsel at sentencing is clearly established federal law
Docket Entries
2022-05-31
Petition DENIED.
2022-05-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/26/2022.
2022-05-05
Waiver of right of respondent Joe A. Lizarraga to respond filed.
2022-02-07
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 5, 2022)
Attorneys
Joe A. Lizarraga
Kenneth Charles Byrne — California Attorney General, Respondent
Ramonta Forte
Ramonta Forte — Petitioner