Question Presented (from Petition)
L Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel cannot establish "good cause" under Rhines v. Weber? And, did the Court of Appeals misapply Rhines' "potentially meritorious" prong?
II. In a capital case, does a trial court's deviation from "the law of the land" during voir dire in an attempt to insulate a perceived death sentence from appellate review violate Due Process?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel cannot establish 'good cause' under Rhines v. Weber? And, did the Court of Appeals misapply Rhines' 'potentially meritorious' prong?
2024-09-24
Reply of petitioner Chuong Tong filed. (Distributed)
2024-08-15
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/30/2024.
2024-07-29
Brief of Bobby Lumpkin in opposition submitted.
2024-07-29
Brief of respondent Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division in opposition filed.
2024-06-18
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including July 29, 2024. See Rule 30.1.
2024-06-17
Motion to extend the time to file a response from June 27, 2024 to July 27, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
2024-05-23
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 27, 2024)
2024-05-07
Application (23A978) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until June 11, 2024.
2024-04-30
Application (23A978) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from May 12, 2024 to June 12, 2024, submitted to Justice Alito.