GONZALEZ v. BICKELL et al
| ARAMIS GONZALEZ, III |
| TABB BICKELL, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF LANCASTER and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA |
| 5:2013cv03404 |
| June 17, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| Allentown Office |
| Lancaster |
| JACOB P. HART |
| EDMUND V. LUDWIG |
| Habeas Corpus: (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
22
ORDER THAT PETITIONER'S PETITION IS CONDITIONALLY GRANTED. PETITIONER SHALL BE RELEASED FROM CUSTODY UNLESS HE IS RESENTENCED ON OR BEFORE 12/29/17, BY THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH MILLER v. ALABAMA, 132 S.CT. 2455(2012) AND MONTGOMERY v. LOUISIANA, 136 S.CT.718(2016).. SIGNED BY HONORABLE J. WILLIAM DITTER, JR ON 6/12/17. 6/13/17 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED TO COUNSEL, 1 COPY OF LEGAL BIN.(pr, )
|
|
Filing
9
ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED. THE PETIITON FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS STAYED AND HELD IN ABEYANCE, ETC; GONZALEZ SHALL RETURN TO FEDERAL COURT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSION OF HIS STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS, ETC; THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDMUND V. LUDWIG ON 9/16/13. 9/18/13 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE AND E-MAILED TO COUNSEL.(lvj, )
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Pennsylvania Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
