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.

Rod v. Hennepin County

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

October 29, 2014

Nicholas Taylor Rod, Petitioner,
v.
Hennepin County, Respondent.

Nicholas Taylor Rod, Minnesota Blvd. S.E., MN Petitioner, pro se.

Matthew Frank, Esq., and James B. Early, Esq., Minnesota Attorney General's Office, St. Paul, MN., counsel for Respondent.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

JANIE S. MAYERON, Magistrate Judge.

Petitioner Nicholas Taylor Rod's Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody on October 23, 2014 (Doc. No. 1, Pet) is before the Court for examination under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Pursuant to Rule 4, the Court must examine a habeas petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to determine whether it "plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief, " and, if so, the court "must dismiss the petition." This Court has conducted the requisite preliminary review and now recommends that the Petition be summarily dismissed without prejudice.

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner is currently incarcerated at the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Saint Cloud, Minnesota, serving a 69-month sentence following his conviction on charges of first-degree burglary. (Pet. ¶¶ 3-5.) He was sentenced on September 9, 2014, after he entered a guilty plea. ( Id. ¶¶ 2(b), 6(a).) As grounds for relief, he asserts the following:

• his motion to dismiss his public defender based on incompatibility, inadequate representation, and a conflict of interest was denied (Pet. ¶ 11(a)(5));
• his public defender pressured him into taking a guilty plea (Pet. ¶ 12(a));
• his motion to withdraw his guilty plea due to manifest injustice was denied (Pet. ¶ 11(a)(5);
• the sentencing judge "used inaccurate claims and insufficient evidence to sentence [him]" (Pet. ¶ 12(a));
• the prosecutor made false claims (Pet. ¶ 12(a));
• police and investigator's reports relating to his case contain contradictory and conflicting statements (Pet. ¶ 12(a)); and
• he never received a presentence investigation (Pet. ¶ 12(a)).

However, Petitioner asserts that he has not appealed from the judgment of conviction or sentence and is "awaiting ...


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.