From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sessoms v. D.L. Runnels

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Nov 3, 2015
2:05-cv-1221 JAM GGH P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2015)

Opinion


TIO DINERO SESSOMS, Petitioner, v. D.L. RUNNELS, Warden, et al.,, Respondents. No. 2:05-cv-1221 JAM GGH P United States District Court, E.D. California. November 3, 2015

          ORDER

          JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.

         By order of January 23, 2015, an en banc panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of the petition for writ of habeas corpus and remanded this case with an order for the district court to proceed in conformance with the most recent opinion of the en banc Court. The Ninth Circuit's order was based on its decision that the California Court of Appeals' conclusion that petitioner's request was not an unequivocal or unambiguous request for an attorney, was an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). The Ninth Circuit found the Miranda error prejudicial. On October 7, 2015, the mandate issued.

         Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: the Judgment previously entered by this court is vacated; Judgment is entered in favor of petitioner in this habeas corpus action. Respondent shall initiate retrial proceedings within sixty days of the filed date of this order or release him.


Summaries of

Sessoms v. D.L. Runnels

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Nov 3, 2015
2:05-cv-1221 JAM GGH P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2015)
Case details for

Sessoms v. D.L. Runnels

Case Details

Full title:TIO DINERO SESSOMS, Petitioner, v. D.L. RUNNELS, Warden, et al.,…

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Nov 3, 2015

Citations

2:05-cv-1221 JAM GGH P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2015)