No. 21-7637
Marecellus Adams v. Tim Hooper, Warden
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: criminal-procedure defense-strategy due-process fundamental-fairness habeas-corpus ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel right-to-counsel sixth-amendment
Latest Conference:
2022-06-09
Question Presented (from Petition)
Did trial counsel violate Adams's right to choose the objective of his defense when he conceded guilt over his express objection?
Was Adams entitled to stay his federal proceedings while he exhausted his substantive constitutional claim in the state courts?
Did the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals erroneously conclude that La. C. Cr. P. art 930.8 precluded Adams from post-conviction or habeas relief because he did not file his McCoy claim within 2 years of the finality of his conviction and sentence?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did trial counsel violate Adams's right to choose the objective of his defense when he conceded guilt over his express objection?
Docket Entries
2022-06-13
Petition DENIED.
2022-05-25
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/9/2022.
2022-05-18
Waiver of right of respondent Tim Hooper, Warden to respond filed.
2022-04-11
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 18, 2022)
Attorneys
Marecellus Adams
Marecellus Adams — Petitioner
Tim Hooper, Warden
Shae Gary McPhee Jr. — Louisiana Department of Justice, Respondent