Petition for Rehearing — In Re Kevin Ogden, Petitioner

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

KEVIN OGDEN, PETLTIONER,

V5.

CHELSEA SMITH, WARDEN,

PENITENTIARY OF NEW

MEXICO SOUTH, STATE OF

NEW MEXICO, eal.

REPONDENTS:

TENTION mn KEHEARLNG

Case Number: 24-7/75

By: Kein Ooden 44394

"Kevin Ogden Pyro Se

Peni ten (ACY “pf [Ve w Me xiCo SoutA

Unit: 2A-L- ee

P.0.B80K [699%

Santa fe, New Mexice §7502- 059

Lage / 7

_Lssue 1: The Sapieme (uct Of New Mexics Cacked

_Turcsdi ction Te Kale Prine 06 Trial.

The S.C. 64 WM. Aas granted Che State fper-

MIS Stan Co prettia/ ayyed/s fer Ahelf ofa Century,

The law quoted by ZAe mM Says Z Ae pret tial Gofreal

's for the defendaat. This ¢’s a public neerese

case, and i's not for delay arin pad £aiLh because

the State 64 VV. M. fla t1ceS aw fantlary Co

Stave and Ledera/ cases WAIch state “£he

oppo svte.

LE is patervering case law stated behw due to

the S.C. 6f NM. adhe Lhery fretsiG/ Opn in

1994 and there AGS been Many New C4Se s SON Ce

Lhe which were not Ee vious pe sented, See

fale 442). See brifha ETAL Vv. Laas 357 US. 12

(1956), Zssqe2 tMls Ledltcon.

The courts have fuled ton sestently tn later cbses

that the case must be a 4£ina/ he cisian for the

defendant L6 appeal frist Ce Creal, aad in £afe

C45C5 the prise CAZCL, See Johnson Vv. Franke Ll, $20

US. 91.0497). LIn this case the deferdant claimed

guali fied im munity , and there was an pnteplacuto fy @ peal prior to t¢47G/s The Court saled tAad

jt mest be Q Fiaal decision to aapeal.

age A,7

Zn Lehrens v. belletier , 5/6 U.S. 299 ) fa4agrapk 1,

Lhe Court fuled in ansther /n ler [blir ory “VGALUA

Chat fé must be G Finda/ decscon Te be doil Llib

Lo tel.

Ln Latnhase Lac v. Blelski (43 $C. (UE, Yb

l.£d 2d 67 20.23) Che court salted a Pret /ia/ Gypea/

1's only eMowed fora final pudgenent > 4, paca l.

Lr techitd dA Merrell jabeirg V. Keller , U7 A U.S. WY

Prd flard Che Court faled €AGZ2L Ct MUST be a

Fine/ yoogenent ts gua lity as an (mmed/ ale

4p eal INCE LOC ULES.

A lack 84.4 speedy tria/ was fulked to be a

valid regsin for Q pretrial aypeq! by the defending

due Co ct Seng a Lina/ order, See Unceed Sdades

\V. Ooaald , 135 US. 840, page 953,892! The Coast

Of Aopea/s pane/ May bs/1ty £0 COGNIZe Ehat @

denial of a pretrial mbtlon (a a Ct1ME na) CASE

gene (elf /s Not Qa00CG/able . The (7/0 secatos fa

Me - 3 en's CaS€ Should N6C have been gran ted

— privelages asd allowed #6 appeal Per

0 t1iG /.

“Finality of judgement Aes been (eguired GS @

predicate fee tedera/ appellote juasdéct fon, See

fra ge 37

Bbn ey v. Unfted States 43/ US. 65 , at 656,

f oe a nf © | v -

[uss nly hina! | uUdgements ase a yp cal a bf e Jee

. _ p> —_—_—_

Sei/ v. United Mares , SOUS. "C003 )

an larerts cat ory

M6. 33,558, pare. Y (aM. Ago -Tul9, D609),

Tn acréimmnal case fn $Wv.l., finality ve fer

PPD 1028 (1m. M. HP lt4E), Dara. 3.

Finality r fe gucled ina Cri nmng/ case €or 9

prethal angeal, State 4. Webb, Ns. 35, 4/, Lage so

Cwm. App. Tune 26 , 20/7),

La crimiral cases the ¢ultag must be £ina/

fo i See State v. Cale, 135 p3d 1273,

para. 3.

The inteslocat o/ yppea/ hes 18 8c/91n ao2d

ase in federqa) vil (iglic S C4SO¢. The Se Ze warded

the same (06 f¢ , 4 right (t does pet Aagve. My.

dgdlen's frosecutos should yet fg ve been &l/s wed

an agpea/ A161 to trial. The State [atked jurisdic? aa.

in ansthey cripinal case Che (bast safea L Age

La a lead dspute case F finality is regacred £6 ¢

Gof ea, See LuUCELO V.TAcAlas ,

guited fot ah appeal See State v. Lach els ) I5b

]

page 47

| £ssue 2! The Sugle Me Gureé Of Neys Mexico Agel

| The Wrong Standard When Zé Kare Mu. oder

The kight To Kepiesent Himself on AGL,

The Sugpe me lotut 64 WV.M. used gad applied Che |

wed Known Legél flecedent Laseé La V. Calter peg

thinking LAGE VL “fp lied 7 6 appeals. LL Wes

Not apply to appeals, See United Yates v.

Kodriguyez , No. 19 - 562 2¢, S27 E 2d 632 (2016)

ri J 7

C5tA GA), footnote 2, Favret? ov. (Gls Le chia oal

applies When a detendant regu ests £6 LEPLESENE

aimselé at trial. Mr. Ogden dd nee.

H/sb, another well Known standard was

omitted that applies to appea/s, See Anders. v.

Califospig , 91 U-S. 621 (0977) Where the Lefendané

feguests to fepresent Ai MSe/E Or A/pPeap, 60 at

the very feast Aave Che Gourd seview Che

merttS Of W's Case te determine 1$ 40 Gppea/

fg Warronted.

Mr. } den did not have ql valid Yipee Ae

Assigned lawyer sabm/tted a FrevEloas Yea l.

The Supreme art 4 The US. Aas hauled Yat

defendants pave the right Co epsesent Chease/ves

on aipeal, and Eo EAagscyats, See Grithin v. DUH 6/3,

Z5U' U2: (21/986). Bok€ alply ts fetct(oner Cylen.

Lssue 3; The fetitirae _ Od. ‘ ,

appeal 1 4 habeas fetitisn' adjudicated jaa.

-_

| See WV.M.2.A. 5-362 Habeas Lorpus KaleslGré .

court of (Gw.

Order WI. Hagen $ Corpus law the beti¢ vanes

issues muse be adjudicated in a Coturt of law,

The problem was’ ident itred ‘nApders VE

Celitstaig , 39 US 735096) in @ short , bet dec’ sve

. « G S ? > rn

opinton thet Pee’tcOners (defendants \ ssues

muse be presented to the Avy er Chuel (f valid, and

Court's must state spec/#ic reasdns wAy eacd

fssde 5 not Valid when falirg on State Habeas

fet itioas. Tre chink states thad ré v's MRCS SGNY

op the Let yoner Pidy Kn Now Lo #~¢/e 14

the next stage 64 Lhe criminal justlce SySCeM.

TAe Stepyeme Court OF The U.S. states Lhae

(t 1S inposschk to proceed unless Che i354! Ss

are adjudicated GAd regsbns GH Ven 611 CaCA

IS SLE «

AQuestemny ! The State May Mist Ayyleal

The Supreme (ourt Of THOUS. fuled in (958

that the State can noe UPA") See Lteen UV Uyted

States, F25° US-1PY, at 19, 193-94.

fage 6 V1

“The Cok minal Appeals Act should be strict ly

const/ued agaansdé the Government 5 (ig kt LO

appeal, S&& (arpillv. United States, 354 UL. 394,

dt 399 , 100/97 7), See also Will Vv. Unpted Séak CF,

309 US. 90, at 96-97 (1967).

TAe Supyeme Court Of N.M, facKe J jurisdiction

to reverse the trial courés paling thet a loA-

Inuntty Service Officer was Nota peace officer,

and tor several reastas. The State can ap eq /

‘f the CNG Court lacked par esade CEN Lhe

rale , Which was bt the case,