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.

Weathers v. Frakes

United States District Court, D. Nebraska

July 9, 2019

BRANDON J. WEATHERS, Petitioner,
v.
SCOTT FRAKES, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          RICHARD G. KOPF, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the court on preliminary review of Petitioner Weathers' Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing No. 1) brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 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: Appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to assign as error the trial court's failure to conduct an adequate inquiry into Petitioner's motion to substitute counsel.
Claim Two: Appellate counsel was ineffective failing to assign as error that the Petitioner's waiver of counsel was not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made.
Claim Three: Appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to assign as error that Petitioner was denied his right to effective assistance of trial counsel due to ineffective cross-examination.
Claim Four: Appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to assign as error that the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland.
Claim Five: Appellate counsel was ineffective failing to assign as error that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to suppress the DNA evidence.

         The court determines that these claims, when liberally construed, are potentially cognizable in federal court. However, the court cautions Petitioner that no determination has been made regarding the merits of these claims or any defenses to them or whether there are procedural bars that will prevent Petitioner from obtaining the relief sought.

         IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

         1. Upon initial review of the habeas corpus petition (Filing No. 1), the court preliminarily determines that Petitioner's claims, as they are set forth in this Memorandum and Order, are potentially cognizable in federal court.

         2. By August 23, 2019, Respondent must file a motion for summary judgment or state court records in support of an answer. The clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this case using the following text: August 23, 2019: deadline for Respondent to file state court records in support of answer or motion for summary judgment.

         3. If Respondent elects to file a motion for summary judgment, the following procedures must be followed by Respondent and Petitioner:

A. The motion for summary judgment must be accompanied by a separate brief, submitted at the time the motion is filed.
B. The motion for summary judgment must be supported by any state court records that are necessary to support the motion. Those records must be ...

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.