Glass v. Thomas et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER-re: R&R 23 . The court hereby ADOPTS the report and ACCEPTS the recommendaton. It is ORDERED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED solely as to the 50 year sentence received by petitioner. Signed by Judge Robert B Propst on 7/31/2013. (AVC)
2013 Jul-31 PM 02:05
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
TROY CLAMMON GLASS,
WARDEN WILLIE THOMAS and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA,
Case No. 6:11-cv-01178-RBP-HGD
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On July 10, 2013, the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation was
entered and the parties were allowed therein fourteen (14) days in which to file
objections to the recommendations made by the magistrate judge. No objections have
been filed by either petitioner or respondents.
After careful consideration of the record in this case and the magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation, the court hereby ADOPTS the report of the magistrate
judge. The court further ACCEPTS the recommendations of the magistrate judge that
the petition for writ of habeas corpus be granted, on the terms agreed upon by the
Page 1 of 2
Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the petition
for writ of habeas corpus is due to be and hereby is GRANTED solely as to the
50-year sentence received by petitioner, Troy Glass, and such sentence hereby is
VACATED, in exchange for petitioner’s plea of guilty to the state offense of rape in
the first degree for an agreed-upon sentence of 20 years. Once the district court has
been notified by respondents that petitioner has been resentenced to the 20-year
sentence he was originally offered, then the district court will enter a final judgment
dismissing the petition for writ of habeas corpus with prejudice.
DONE this 31st day of July, 2013.
ROBERT B. PROPST
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 2 of 2
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.
Why Is My Information Online?