|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|11-10189||5th Cir.||May 28, 2013||5-4||Breyer||OT 2012|
Holding: When, as here, a state’s procedural framework, by reason of its design and operation, makes it highly unlikely in a typical case that a defendant will have a meaningful opportunity to raise on direct appeal a claim that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance, the good cause exception recognized in Martinez v. Ryan applies.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on May 28, 2013. The Chief Justice filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Alito joined. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Thomas joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Apr 30 2012||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 6, 2012)|
|Jun 5 2012||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including August 6, 2012.|
|Jun 6 2012||Brief amici curiae of Former Federal Judges filed.|
|Aug 6 2012||Brief of respondent Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division in opposition filed.|
|Aug 16 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 24, 2012.|
|Aug 30 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 24, 2012.|
|Sep 1 2012||Reply of petitioner Carlos Trevino filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 11 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 26, 2012.|
|Oct 29 2012||Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.|
|Dec 6 2012||Consent to the fiiing of amicus curiae briefs , in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondents.|
|Dec 13 2012||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)|
|Dec 13 2012||Brief of petitioner Carlos Trevino filed.|
|Dec 18 2012||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Monday, February 25, 2013.|
|Dec 19 2012||Brief amici curiae of University of Texas School of Law Capital Punishment Clinic, et al. filed.|
|Dec 20 2012||Brief amicus curiae of State Bar of Texas in support of neither party filed.|
|Jan 4 2013||CIRCULATED.|
|Jan 14 2013||Brief of respondent Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 16 2013||Record received from U.S.C.A. for 5th Circuit. (1 box)|
|Jan 22 2013||Brief amici curiae of Utah and 24 Other States filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 22 2013||Brief amici curiae of Families of Linda Salinas and Other Crime Victims filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 22 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Criminal Justice Legal Foundation filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 30 2013||Record from U.S.D.C. for Western District of Texas is electronic.|
|Jan 30 2013||Supplemental Record (sealed documents) recieved from U.S.D.C. for Western District of Texas.|
|Feb 13 2013||Reply of petitioner Carlos Trevino filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 25 2013||Argued. For petitioner: Warren A. Wolf, San Antonio, Tex. For respondent: Andrew S. Oldham, Deputy Solicitor General, Austin, Tex.|
|Mar 1 2013||Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioner Carlos Trevino.|
|Mar 13 2013||Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 29, 2013.|
|Apr 1 2013||Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioner GRANTED. Warren A. Wolf, Esquire, of San Antonio, Texas, is appointed to serve as counsel for the petitioner in this case.|
|May 28 2013||Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Breyer, J., delivered the opinion for the Court, in which Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Roberts, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Alito, J., joined. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas, J., joined.|
|Jul 1 2013||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
|Jul 2 2013||Record returned to the U.S.C.A. for the 5th Circuit 1 box.|
Having covered the Supreme Court for six decades, @lylden has seen a lot of changes at 1 First Street. In the latest piece in our series on the post-COVID court, Lyle examines how the court's pandemic operations could spur permanent reform.
How has COVID-19 changed the Supreme Court? And are any of those changes worth keeping? Today we launch a symposium examining those questions.
First up, a piece from @stevenmazie on how to reform oral arguments after the pandemic.
The court after COVID: A recipe for oral argument reform - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court has not yet announced whether it will return to normal operations when the 2021-22 term begins ...
NEW shadow-docket case: New York landlords ask SCOTUS for an emergency order to prevent the state from continuing to enforce its COVID-related eviction moratorium. They say the moratorium "runs roughshod" over their constitutional rights.
Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A8-1.pdf
New on the shadow docket: Florida seeks an emergency order blocking CDC policies that substantially limit cruise ships from sailing.
Florida asks #SCOTUS to block, pending appeal, CDC restrictions imposed on cruise industry b/c of COVID-19 pandemic: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A5.pdf
NEW: Mississippi formally asks the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, in latest court filing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf
Biden’s SCOTUS reform commission met yesterday and discussed several reform ideas including adding justices and adopting a formal code of ethics.
Term limits emerged as a popular idea. But how to implement it — via statute or constitutional amendment?
Term limits emerge as popular proposal at latest meeting of court-reform commission - SCOTUSblog
The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court reconvened on Tuesday to hear from a new set of experts on vari...
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.