No. 23-5438

Fox Joseph Salerno v. Ryan Thornell, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry, et al.

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2023-08-24
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Relisted (2)IFP
Tags: apprendi apprendi-rule blakely blakely-retroactivity certificate-of-appealability due-process jurisdiction retroactivity rule-of-finality rule-of-lenity sentencing sentencing-jurisdiction
Latest Conference: 2023-12-08 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)

ONE
Does Apprendi decision apply to Arizona Defendants on the date that the
U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Apprendi (June 26, 2000), or on the date that
the Blakely decision came out (June 24, 2004), which only re-interprets the
meaning of Apprendi?

TWO
Is Blakely retroactive to Apprendi?

THREE
If a defendant does not admit aggravating factors nor does a jury convict
him of these aggravating factors as is now required under Apprendi, does
the court or did the court have SMJ or any jurisdiction, to issue an enhanced
sentence using these aggravating factors?

FOUR
Does the Rule of Lenity or Rule of Finality take precedence? They are in
conflict in this case and the lower court is choosing Finality.

FIVE
Did the Ninth Circuit violate Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S. Cf.
1595, 146 L. Ed. 2d 542 (2000); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); in denying
Certificate of appealability, by relying on their own conflicting ruling in
United States v. Winkles, 795 F.3d 1134,1143 (9th Cir. 2015); Lynch v. Blodgett, 999 F.2d
401, 403 (9th Cir. 1993)

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does Apprendi decision apply to Arizona Defendants

Docket Entries

2023-12-11
Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner DENIED.
2023-11-21
Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/8/2023.
2023-11-09
Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner.
2023-10-30
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).
2023-10-12
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/27/2023.
2023-06-22
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 25, 2023)

Attorneys

Fox Joseph Salerno
Fox Joseph Salerno — Petitioner