Breaking News

Ayestas v. Davis

Petition for certiorari denied on February 24, 2020
Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
19-569 5th Cir. N/A N/A N/A N/A OT 2019

Issues: (1) Whether “prevailing professional norms” required counsel in a capital case to investigate potential mitigation evidence, including red flags for mental health and substance abuse, before the Supreme Court decided Wiggins v. Smith, Rompilla v. Beard and Porter v. McCollum—as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 3rd, 6th, 9th and 10th Circuits have held, in conflict with the decision below; and (2) whether, under 18 U.S.C. § 3599(f), a reasonable attorney would regard the pursuit of services to investigate a capital defendant’s mental health as “sufficiently important” under Ayestas v. Davis, when it is plausible that the failure to investigate that aspect of petitioner’s background on state postconviction review could, given substantial authority recognizing counsel’s duty to do so, excuse the procedural default of an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

DateProceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Oct 29 2019Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 29, 2019)
Nov 19 2019Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 29, 2019 to January 13, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
Nov 21 2019Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 13, 2020.
Jan 13 2020Brief of respondent Lorie Davis, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice (Institutional Division) in opposition filed.
Jan 28 2020Reply of petitioner Carlos Manuel Ayestas filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2020DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2020.
Feb 24 2020Petition DENIED.