No. 22-7413
Nathan G. Flemming v. Tennessee
Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: constitutional-law constitutional-provisions criminal-procedure defendant-rights delay due-process judicial-process presence-of-defendant pronouncement-of-sentence sentencing sentencing-delay
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2023-09-26
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. DOES A THIRTEEN MONTH DELAY BETWEEN SENTENCING HEARING AND THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF SENTENCE VIOLATE DUE PROCESS?
2. DOES THE ABSENCE OF A DEFENDANT FOR THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF HIS SENTENCE VIOLATE DUE PROCESS?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does a thirteen month delay between sentencing hearing and the pronouncement of sentence violate due process?
Docket Entries
2023-10-02
Rehearing DENIED.
2023-09-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023.
2023-07-07
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2023-06-20
Petition DENIED.
2023-05-31
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/15/2023.
2023-05-26
Waiver of right of respondent Tennessee to respond filed.
2023-03-23
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 30, 2023)
Attorneys
Nathan G. Flemming
Nathan G. Flemming — Petitioner
Tennessee
Edwin Alan Groves Jr. — Tennessee Attorney General and Reporter, Respondent