Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Glen Charles v. Charles Anderson Warden, 79-1158 (1980)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Number: 79-1158 Visitors: 5
Filed: Oct. 03, 1980
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 629 F.2d 1182 Glen CHARLES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles Anderson WARDEN, Respondent-Appellee. No. 79-1158. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Argued Oct. 8, 1979. Decided Oct. 3, 1980. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan; James P. Churchill, Judge. F. Martin Tieber, Deputy State Appellate Defender Office, Lansing, Mich., for petitioner-appellant. Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen. of Michigan, Robert A. Derengoski, Thomas L. Casey, Stephen
More

629 F.2d 1182

Glen CHARLES, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Charles Anderson WARDEN, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 79-1158.

United States Court of Appeals,
Sixth Circuit.

Argued Oct. 8, 1979.
Decided Oct. 3, 1980.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan; James P. Churchill, Judge.

F. Martin Tieber, Deputy State Appellate Defender Office, Lansing, Mich., for petitioner-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen. of Michigan, Robert A. Derengoski, Thomas L. Casey, Stephen Schuesler, Asst. Attys. Gen., Lansing, Mich., for respondent-appellee.

Before EDWARDS, Chief Judge, MERRITT, Circuit Judge, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

1

In an opinion published at 610 F.2d 417 (6th Cir. 1979), this court, by a divided vote, reversed the judgment of the district court denying the application of Glen Charles for a writ of habeas corpus and ordered that the writ issue unless Charles be tried again within a reasonable time.

2

In Anderson v. Charles, 447 U.S. ----, 100 S. Ct. 2180, 65 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1980), the Supreme Court reversed the decision of this court and remanded the case for further proceedings in conformity with the opinion of that court.

3

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the previous decision of this court, reported at 610 F.2d 417 (6th Cir. 1979), be and hereby is vacated and the judgment of the district court, denying the application for the writ of habeas corpus, is affirmed.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer