No. 18-8098
IFP
Tags: due-process government-interference habeas-corpus pcra plea-agreement post-conviction-relief-act statutory-interpretation statutory-provisions timeliness
Latest Conference:
2019-03-15
Question Presented (from Petition)
WHETHER APPELLANT HANSON'S PCRA'S WERE TIMELY UNDER 42 Pa. C.S. § 9545(b) DUE TO GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE AND REFUSAL TO RELEASE DOCUMENTS.
WHETHER APPELLANT HANSON'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL'S FAILURE TO DISCLOSE A PLEA AGREEMENT WITH CO-DEFENDANT TIMOTHY SEIP, AND THE REFUSAL TO PROVIDE A COPY OF TIMOTHY SEIP'S MARCH 20, 1986 PCRA HEARING.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether appellant Hanson's PCRA's were timely under 42 Pa. C.S. §9545(b) due to government interference and refusal to release documents
Docket Entries
2019-03-18
Petition DENIED.
2019-02-28
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/15/2019.
2018-08-31
Petition for writ of habeas corpus and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed.
Attorneys
In Re Christopher Hanson
Christopher Hanson — Petitioner