Villanueva v. Clark, 17-610. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20191210f56
Visitors: 8
Filed: Dec. 09, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 09, 2019
Summary: ORDER CYNTHIA M. RUFE , District Judge . AND NOW, this 6th day of December 2019, after a careful and independent consideration of the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and of the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the assigned Magistrate Judge [Doc. No. 16], Petitioner's objections thereto [Doc. No. 23], and the entire record in this case, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion it is hereby ORDERED that Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc
Summary: ORDER CYNTHIA M. RUFE , District Judge . AND NOW, this 6th day of December 2019, after a careful and independent consideration of the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and of the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the assigned Magistrate Judge [Doc. No. 16], Petitioner's objections thereto [Doc. No. 23], and the entire record in this case, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion it is hereby ORDERED that Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc...
More
ORDER
CYNTHIA M. RUFE, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 6th day of December 2019, after a careful and independent consideration of the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and of the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the assigned Magistrate Judge [Doc. No. 16], Petitioner's objections thereto [Doc. No. 23], and the entire record in this case, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion it is hereby ORDERED that Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 1] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:
1) Claim three is GRANTED. Accordingly, it is further ORDERED that petitioner's conviction and sentence are VACATED. The petitioner shall be released from custody (subject to any detainers) unless a retrial by the Commonwealth has commenced on or before April 6, 2020.
2) Claims one, two, four, and five are DENIED without an evidentiary hearing.
3) As to claims one, two, four, and five, there is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability1; and
4) The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case.
It is so ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. There is no basis for concluding that "reasonable jurists could debate whether . . . the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (internal citation omitted).
Source: Leagle
