Saturday, March 21, 2009

ISSUES OF THE CASE: ROE V. FLORES-ORTEGA

The case came before the court, because Ortega had filed for a federal habeas due to Kops’ failure in filing for an appeal 60 days after Ortega’s trial.
The efforts for Ortega’s appeal, due to Kops negligence, came out untimely, and he was unable to file for an appeal.
The matter was referred to a Magistrate Judge by the United States District Court for Eastern California.
The Judge took the matter and ordered a hearing on wither Kops made the promise to help with Ortega’s appeal
In conclusion of the case that followed suit, the Judge said, “The evidence in this case is, I think, quite clear that there was no consent to a failure to file a notice of appeal”.
The point was argued. They recollected a conversation between Kops and Ortega while he was behind bars involving the appeal process. They discussed how Kops did not recall the promise, but at the same time, she was a professional and experience defense counsel, and that if Ortega had requested an appeal, Kops would have obliged without backing down.

No comments:

Post a Comment