Legal Opinion
Wilbur Richardson v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole Attorney General of Pennsylvania
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided September 8, 2005No. 04-2026PublishedCited by 44 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
BECKER, Circuit Judge.
Wilbur Richardson filed a petition for habeas corpus claiming that the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (“the Parole Board”) has continually denied him parole in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. Richardson asserts that, in rejecting his parole application, the Parole Board retroactively applied 1996 amendments to the Pennsylvania Probation and Parole Act, Pa. Stat. Ann., tit. 61, §§ 331.l-331.34a (West 1999) (“Parole Act”). Richardson relies on our decision in Mickens-Thomas v. Vaughn, 321 F.3d 374 (3d…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Townsend v. SainSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Weaver v. GrahamSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- California Department of Corrections v. MoralesSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Garner v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Zettlemoyer v. FulcomerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1991
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by44 opinions
- Newman v. BeardCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2010
- Joseph P. Dyer III v. James Bowlen, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2006
- Shawn Parker v. Donald Kelchner, Superintendent Attorney General of PennsylvaniaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2005
- Pa Prison Society v. CortesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2010
- Wilfred Holmes v. Christopher ChristieCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2021
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.