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. Frakes

United States District Court, D. Nebraska

July 20, 2017

DILLON SHADLE, also known as Riley Nicole Shadle, Petitioner,
v.
SCOTT FRAKES, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          Richard G. Kopf, Senior United States District Judge

         This matter is before the court on Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Filing No. 11.) Respondent argues Petitioner Dillon Shadle's (“Shadle”) Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“habeas petition”) (Filing No. 1) must be dismissed because his claims are procedurally defaulted. The court agrees and will dismiss the habeas petition with prejudice.

         I. BACKGROUND

         A. Convictions and Direct Appeal

         Shadle was convicted of first degree sexual assault of a child, two counts of visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct, and possession of child pornography, following his guilty pleas in the Sarpy County District Court on October 27, 2014. (Filing No. 12-3 at CM/ECF pp. 25-26.) The state district court sentenced Shadle to consecutive sentences of 30 to 50 years' imprisonment for first degree sexual assault of a child, 3 to 6 years' imprisonment for each count of visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct, and 4 years' imprisonment for possession of child pornography. (Id. at CM/ECF pp. 27-29.) On November 25, 2015, the Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed Shadle's convictions and sentences on direct appeal. (Filing No. 12-2 at CM/ECF p. 3.) Shadle's sole assignment of error on direct appeal was that the state district court imposed upon him excessive sentences. (Filing No. 12-4 at CM/ECF p. 7.) Shadle did not petition the Nebraska Supreme Court for further review. (Filing No. 12-2 at CM/ECF p. 3.) The mandate issued on January 6, 2016. (Id.)

         B. Postconviction

         Shadle did not file a motion for postconviction relief in the state district court. (See Filing No. 12-1.)

         C. Habeas Petition

         Shadle filed his habeas petition (Filing No. 1) in this court on November 1, 2016. Thereafter, Respondent moved for summary judgment (Filing No. 11), arguing Shadle's claims are procedurally defaulted (Filing No. 13). Shadle filed various documents in response. (Filing Nos. 19-21.)[1] Respondent filed a Notice of Case Submission. (Filing No. 23.) This matter is fully submitted for disposition.

         II. ANALYSIS

         A. Exhaustion Requirement

         As set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2254:

(b)(1) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not ...

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.