Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Tiffany Brown v. United States
IFP petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, No. 25-11785 · judgment September 3, 2025
Questions presented
-
Whether Petitioner was denied effective assistance of appellate counsel when court-appointed counsel failed to file or consult Petitioner about filing, a petition for panel rehearing under Federal rule of Appellate Procedure 40 or a petition for rehearing en banc under Rule 35, resulting in the complete forfeiture of appellate review on Counts 1-29.
-
Whether procedural forfeiture (default) caused solely by counsel’s neglect or abandoned as opposed to any informed or strategic decision by the defendant must be excused under this Court’s decision in Maple v Thomas , 565 U.S. 266 (2012), Holland v Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010), and Garza v Idaho, 139 S. Ct. 738 (2019).
-
Whether an indigent defendant may be denied the right to proceed pro se on direct appeal, and whether the denial of that right followed by counsel’s subsequent forfeiture of all appellate remedies constitutes structural error the Sixth Amendment.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Tiffany Brown
For respondent
D. John Sauer
Solicitor General
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference
Proceedings
- Mar 23 2026Petition DENIED.
- Mar 05 2026DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/20/2026.
- Mar 02 2026Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
- Dec 02 2025Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 26, 2026)