From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Kerestes

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Jun 16, 2009
CIVIL ACTION No. 08-0061 (E.D. Pa. Jun. 16, 2009)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

rejecting petitioner's claim that his state sentence was excessive because "absent a Constitutional violation, a federal court has no power to review a sentence in a habeas corpus proceeding unless it exceeds statutory limits"

Summary of this case from Kuhn v. Gillmore
See 6 Summaries

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION No. 08-0061.

June 16, 2009

ORDER

BERLE SCHILLER, District Judge

AND NOW, this 16th day of June, 2009, upon consideration of the Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus, the Respondents' Answer to the Petition, and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Lynne A. Sitarski, the Petitioner's Objections thereto, the Respondents' objections thereto, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED without an evidentiary hearing; and a certificate of appealability is GRANTED as to Petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim under United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984).

Summaries of

Smith v. Kerestes

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Jun 16, 2009
CIVIL ACTION No. 08-0061 (E.D. Pa. Jun. 16, 2009)

rejecting petitioner's claim that his state sentence was excessive because "absent a Constitutional violation, a federal court has no power to review a sentence in a habeas corpus proceeding unless it exceeds statutory limits"

Summary of this case from Kuhn v. Gillmore

rejecting petitioner's claim that his state sentence was excessive because "absent a Constitutional violation, a federal court has no power to review a sentence in a habeas corpus proceeding unless it exceeds statutory limits"

Summary of this case from Woodley v. Kerestes

rejecting petitioner's claim that his state sentence was excessive because "absent a Constitutional violation, a federal court has no power to review a sentence in a habeas corpus proceeding unless it exceeds statutory limits"

Summary of this case from Smith v. Cameron

rejecting petitioner's claim that his state sentence was excessive because "absent a Constitutional violation, a federal court has no power to review a sentence in a habeas corpus proceeding unless it exceeds statutory limits"

Summary of this case from Hunt v. Pennsylvania

rejecting petitioner's claim that his state sentence was excessive because "absent a Constitutional violation, a federal court has no power to review a sentence in a habeas corpus proceeding unless it exceeds statutory limits"

Summary of this case from King v. Walsh

rejecting petitioner's claim that his state sentence was excessive because "absent a Constitutional violation, a federal court has no power to review a sentence in a habeas corpus proceeding unless it exceeds statutory limits"

Summary of this case from Baenig v. Patrick
Case details for

Smith v. Kerestes

Case Details

Full title:CURTIS SMITH Petitioner, v. JOHN KERESTES, et al. Respondents

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Jun 16, 2009

Citations

CIVIL ACTION No. 08-0061 (E.D. Pa. Jun. 16, 2009)

Citing Cases

Evans v. Ransome

Regarding Ground 10, the R&R stated that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in “sentencing him to…

Woodley v. Kerestes

In fact, habeas challenges to a state court's sentencing discretion are unreviewable by a federal court…

18 Citing Cases