No. 22-7404
Tomas Jaramillo v. United States
Tags: appeal-rights attorney-client-communication attorney-consultation consultation-duty criminal-appeals criminal-defendant criminal-procedure flores-ortega-standard ineffective-assistance-of-counsel right-to-appeal sentencing
Latest Conference:
2023-06-01
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether, when a criminal defendant expresses interest in an appeal and concern over the length of his sentence, an attorney who fails to hold a follow-up discussion as he promised has failed to consult within the meaning of Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000).
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether an attorney has failed to consult within the meaning of Roe v. Flores-Ortega
Docket Entries
2023-06-05
Petition DENIED.
2023-05-17
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/1/2023.
2023-05-09
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2023-04-24
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 30, 2023)
Attorneys
Tomas Jaramillo
Philip J. Lynch — Law Offices of Phil Lynch, Petitioner
United States of America
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent