No. 22-5244

Charles M. Torrence v. Hazel Peterson, Warden

Lower Court: Tenth Circuit
Docketed: 2022-08-01
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: constitutional-right criminal-procedure critical-stage due-process legal-representation mental-competency right-to-counsel sixth-amendment statewide-importance
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2022-09-28
Question Presented (from Petition)

Whether it is of statewide, and even nationwide importance, ONE:
for the United States Supreme Court to declare definitively
whether a mental competency hearing harbors "significant conse-
" for a criminal defendant which makes it a "critical quences
stage" in the criminal prosecution requiring representation by
counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitu
tion?

If the answer to ONE is yes, did the state of Kansas deny
Charles M. Torrence his Sixth Amendment constitutional right toTWO:
counsel at his competency hearing?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a mental competency hearing is a critical stage of a criminal prosecution requiring representation by counsel under the Sixth Amendment

Docket Entries

2022-10-03
Petition DENIED.
2022-09-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/28/2022.
2022-08-25
Waiver of right of respondent Peterson, Warden to respond filed.
2022-06-24
Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 31, 2022)

Attorneys

Charles M. Torrence
Charles M. Torrence — Petitioner
Peterson, Warden
Brant M. LaueSolicitor General of Kansas, Respondent