No. 23-5224
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: appellate-review civil-procedure constitutional-rights discretionary-review due-process evidentiary-hearing ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel newly-discovered-evidence trial-court-record trial-court-records
Latest Conference:
2023-09-26
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether Appellate Court abused it's disereton by
déenmy te Vacate and or Granta Evidentiary hénrine,
where Pro sé petitioner Established, And State did
Not Cebset that trial counsel wars inetective fis Not
disclosings Awy of thé discovety priot te thé Entering
ot A plea Agtetméent.
Whether Appellate Court abused it's discretion by
(ENiEWing A part of the Newly Niseoveted Evidewce /
Ritention Filé that Is outside of The teinl CourT
fecords, And by not sending bnck te thé Treal Couct
So all of the Newly Discovered Evidewc® covld be
féevigewed wn A Evidestiary Hearing.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether Appellate Court abused its discretion
Docket Entries
2023-10-02
Petition DENIED.
2023-08-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023.
2023-08-02
Waiver of right of respondent Illinois to respond filed.
2023-04-13
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 28, 2023)
Attorneys
Illinois
James Scott
James Scott — Petitioner