No. 23-7610
Relisted (2)IFP
Tags: 6th-amendment anders-review appellate-procedure constitutional-violation due-process procedural-safeguards right-to-counsel sixth-amendment stare-decisis time-limit
Latest Conference:
2024-11-08
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
Does Ohio's App. R. 26 (B)(1) violate the 6th Amendment of the United States Constitution by applying a time limit to when an applicant can file to reopen an appeal when an applicant has proven, that due to counsel error, a review of the legal merits of the case on direct appeal, as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 and Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, was never performed?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does Ohio's App. R. 26(B)(1) violate the 6th Amendment by applying a time limit to reopen an appeal when an applicant has proven counsel error in not performing an Anders review?
Docket Entries
2024-11-12
Rehearing DENIED.
2024-10-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/8/2024.
2024-10-09
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2024-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2024-07-18
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/30/2024.
2024-05-28
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 1, 2024)
Attorneys
David K. Horsley
David K. Horsley — Petitioner