HERRERA v. HEINZE, 375 U.S. 26 (1963)
U.S. Supreme Court
HERRERA v. HEINZE, 375 U.S. 26 (1963) 375 U.S. 26HERRERA v. HEINZE, WARDEN.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF
CALIFORNIA.
No. 82, Misc.
Decided October 14, 1963.
Certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded.
Petitioner pro se.
Stanley Mosk, Attorney General of California, Doris H. Maier, Assistant Attorney General, and Edsel W. Haws, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of California for further consideration in light of Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, for the reasons stated in Daegele v. Kansas, ante, p. 1, would have withheld disposition of this petition for certiorari until the disposition, after argument, of that case.
U.S. Supreme Court
HERRERA v. HEINZE, 375 U.S. 26 (1963) 375 U.S. 26 HERRERA v. HEINZE, WARDEN.ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA.
No. 82, Misc.
Decided October 14, 1963.
Certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded. Petitioner pro se. Stanley Mosk, Attorney General of California, Doris H. Maier, Assistant Attorney General, and Edsel W. Haws, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent. PER CURIAM. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of California for further consideration in light of Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, for the reasons stated in Daegele v. Kansas, ante, p. 1, would have withheld disposition of this petition for certiorari until the disposition, after argument, of that case. Page 375 U.S. 26, 27
