Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Shadle v. State
United States District Court, D. Nebraska
February 14, 2017
DILLON SHADLE also known as Riley Nicole Shadle, Petitioner,
STATE OF NEBRASKA, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Richard G. Kopf, Senior United States District Judge
matter is before the court on preliminary review of
Petitioner Dillon Shadle's Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus (Filing No. 1) brought pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254. The court notes that Petitioner
filed a previous Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. See
Dillon Andrew Shadle v. State of Nebraska, 8:16CV186 (D.
Neb.). Because the court dismissed Petitioner's first
habeas petition without prejudice and did not adjudicate any
of Petitioner's claims on the merits, the court will not
treat the current habeas petition as a “second or
the purpose of this review is to determine whether
Petitioner's claims, when liberally construed, are
potentially cognizable in federal court. Condensed and
summarized for clarity, Petitioner's claims are:
Claim One: Petitioner was not guilty of the offenses because
of mental disease or defect, specifically his recent
diagnosis of Gender Identity Disorder.
Claim Two: Petitioner was denied effective assistance of
counsel because trial counsel did not raise the
issue of his competency and that he should have been found
not guilty because of mental defect.
Claim Three: Petitioner was denied effective assistance of
counsel because trial counsel failed to raise his
mental health and past sexual abuse as mitigating
circumstances for his convictions and sentences.
Claim Four: Petitioner's sentences are excessive.
Claim Five: The victim's evidence was inadmissible
against Petitioner because it was not corroborated
by other evidence.
Claim Six: Petitioner's privilege against
self-incrimination was violated because he was
interrogated after he invoked his right to counsel and before
counsel was made available and, therefore, all evidence
seized thereafter from his vehicle was inadmissible.
Claim Seven: Petitioner was denied effective assistance of
counsel because trial counsel failed to object to
the introduction of the illegally seized evidence and to it
being considered at sentencing.
Claim Eight: Petitioner was denied effective assistance of
counsel because trial counsel did not allow him to
review the presentence report.
Claim Nine: Petitioner was denied effective assistance of
counsel because counsel did not raise on direct
appeal “the issue of disproportionate sentences for
acts arising from the same criminal act and receiving maximum
or sentences approaching the maximum on separate charged
counts arising from the same or the continuation of the same
criminal act.” Claim Ten: Petitioner's pleas were
not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily
because of his medication.
Claim Eleven: Petitioner was denied effective assistance of
counsel because trial counsel failed to raise that
his pleas were not entered knowingly, intelligently, and
voluntarily due to his medication.
Claim Twelve: Petitioner's Fourth Amendment right to be
free from unreasonable search and seizure was violated when
his vehicle was searched ...
Buy This Entire Record For