No. 22-5871
Timothy Steel v. Dan Winkleski, Warden
IFP
Tags: anders-v-california constitutional-error direct-appeal due-process habeas-corpus ineffective-assistance-of-counsel statute-of-limitations writ-of-certiorari
Latest Conference:
2023-01-06
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. IS THE PETITIONER ENTITLED TO BE PROVIDED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF SUCCESSOR COUNSEL IN ACCORD WITH DUE PROCESS OF LAW, THEREBY OVERCOMING THE ONE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS UNDER 2244(d), TO FILE A 2254 WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, IF BOTH THE APPELLATE COURT AND THE PETITIONER'S COURT APPOINTED COUNSEL FAILED TO IDENTIFY THE EXISTENCE OF A DIRECT SENTENCING ERROR COMMITTED BY THE STATE COURT WHILE DECIDING A DIRECT APPEAL?
2. IS THE PETITIONER ENTITLED TO APPELLATE REVIEW OF ISSUES RAISED BY FAILING TO GRANT A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Is a petitioner entitled to effective assistance of successor counsel to file a 2254 writ of habeas corpus despite the statute of limitations
Docket Entries
2023-01-09
Petition DENIED.
2022-12-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/6/2023.
2022-08-23
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 18, 2022)
Attorneys
Timothy Steel
Timothy Steel — Petitioner