Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Shadle v. State

United States District Court, D. Nebraska

February 14, 2017

DILLON SHADLE also known as Riley Nicole Shadle, Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF NEBRASKA, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          Richard G. Kopf, Senior United States District Judge

         This 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 successive.”[1]

         Accordingly, 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 $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.