GILLS v. CALIFORNIA, 387 U.S. 574 (1967)
Decided:
June 5, 1967
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
GILLS v. CALIFORNIA, 387 U.S. 574 (1967) 387 U.S. 574GILLS v. CALIFORNIA.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF
CALIFORNIA.
No. 1043, Misc.
Decided June 5, 1967.
Certiorari granted; vacated and remanded.
Petitioner pro se.
Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, and Edsel W. Haws and Daniel J. Kremer, Deputy Attorneys 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 Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate District, for further consideration in light of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18.
Opinions
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA.
No. 1043, Misc.
Decided June 5, 1967.
Certiorari granted; vacated and remanded. Petitioner pro se. Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, and Edsel W. Haws and Daniel J. Kremer, Deputy Attorneys 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 Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate District, for further consideration in light of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18. Page 387 U.S. 574, 575
U.S. Supreme Court
GILLS v. CALIFORNIA, 387 U.S. 574 (1967) 387 U.S. 574 GILLS v. CALIFORNIA.ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA.
No. 1043, Misc.
Decided June 5, 1967.
Certiorari granted; vacated and remanded. Petitioner pro se. Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, and Edsel W. Haws and Daniel J. Kremer, Deputy Attorneys 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 Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate District, for further consideration in light of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18. Page 387 U.S. 574, 575
Search This Case
