No. 21-8212
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: criminal-appeal criminal-procedure door-opening double-jeopardy due-process evidence ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel new-york-law vindictive-sentencing vindictiveness
Key Terms:
DueProcess CriminalProcedure
DueProcess CriminalProcedure
Latest Conference:
2022-11-04
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
I. Whether the New York Courts erred when they failed to adhere to Hemphill v. New York and its progeny regarding the proper standard for door-opening?
II. Whether the presumption of vindictiveness that exists when an enhanced sentence is imposed after a successful appeal, can be ignored based upon counsel's failure to recognize it?
III. Whether counsel was ineffective?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the New York courts erred in applying the 'opening the door' standard
Docket Entries
2022-11-07
Petition DENIED.
2022-10-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/4/2022.
2022-10-05
Brief of respondent New York in opposition filed.
2022-09-06
Response Requested. (Due October 6, 2022)
2022-08-04
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/28/2022.
2022-07-29
Waiver of right of respondent New York to respond filed.
2022-06-14
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 25, 2022)
Attorneys
Anthony N. Ott
Anthony Neal Ott — Petitioner
New York
Scott Michael Myles — Monroe County District Attorney's Office, Respondent