WRIGHT v. WENEROWICZ et al
ORDER THAT PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS AS TO GROUND ONE ARE SUSTAINED. PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS ARE OVERRULED IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS. THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS GRANTED AS TO GROUND ONE. PETITIONER'S CONVICTION AND SENTENCE FOR BURGLARY ARE VACATED. RESPONDENT IS DIRECTED TO RELEASE PETITIONER FROM THE CUSTODY RESULTING FROM THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION ON THE BURGLARY COUNT. THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AS TO GROUNDS TWO THROUGH SIX IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED. THE PETITIO N FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DENIED AS TO GROUNDS TWO, THREE, AND SIX. THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DISMISSED AS TO CLAIMS FOUR AND FIVE. A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY SHALL NOT ISSUE AS TO THE DSPOSITION OF GROUNDS TWO THROUGH SIX. THE CLERK OF THE COURT SHALL MARK THIS CASE CLOSED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG ON 7/11/16. 7/11/16 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER, E-MAILED TO COUNSEL, 1 COPY TO LEGAL BIN.(pr, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MICHAEL WENEROWICZ, ET AL.,
AND NOW, this 11th day of July, 2016, upon careful and independent consideration of
the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and after review of the Report and Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge Linda K. Caracappa and Petitioner’s Objections thereto, it is
hereby ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner’s objections as to ground one are SUSTAINED. Petitioner’s objections are
OVERRULED in all other respects.
2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED as to ground one. Petitioner’s
conviction and sentence for burglary are VACATED. Respondent is directed to
RELEASE Petitioner from the custody resulting from the judgment of conviction on
the burglary count.
3. The Report and Recommendation as to grounds two through six is APPROVED and
4. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED as to grounds two, three and six.
5. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED as to claims four and five.
6. A certificate of appealability SHALL NOT issue as to the disposition of grounds two
through six, in that Petitioner has not demonstrated that a reasonable jurist would
debate the correctness of this ruling. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).1
7. The Clerk of the Court shall mark this case CLOSED for statistical purposes.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Mitchell S. Goldberg
MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG, J.
I have not addressed whether a certificate of appealability shall issue with respect to the
disposition of ground one because “[a] certificate of appealability is not required when a state or
its representative or the United States or its representative appeals.” Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(3).
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?