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.

Linderman v. Lackner

United States District Court, E.D. California

October 1, 2014

MATTHEW LINDERMAN, Petitioner,
v.
HEIDI M. LACKNER, Respondent.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (ECF No. 1)

GARY S. AUSTIN, Magistrate Judge.

Petitioner is a state prisoner represented by counsel in a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254.

On September 22, 2014, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus. He raises the following nine grounds for relief in his petition:

1. Trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to present evidence of Petitioner's good character;
2. Trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to introduce proof of Petitioner's lack of propensity to engage in professional misconduct;
3. Prosecutor's misconduct deprived Petitioner of due process and a fair trial; trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object;
4. Trial court violated Petitioner's rights to due process, a fair trial, a reliable sentence and double jeopardy by improperly imposing the high term and by imposing consecutive, duplicative terms; trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object;
5. Trial court erred by failing to suppress evidence because the illegal search and seizure violated Petitioner's Fourth Amendment rights;
6. Trial court denied Petitioner due process, a fair trial and the right to present a defense by excluding Dr. Streed's expert testimony and excluding Edwards' impeaching photographs;
7. Prosecution failed, beyond a reasonable doubt, to prove the "touching" and "public place" elements of the solicitation convictions;
8. Evidence failed to prove Petitioner solicited a bribe because the requested acts did not involve money or anything of ascertainable value; and
9. Evidence failed to prove that Petitioner committed the crime of oral copulation under color of authority.

(Pet., ECF 1). On June 26, 2013, the California Supreme Court denied Petitioner's petition for review, which raised grounds five (5) through eight (8) of the instant petition.[1] On September 18, 2014, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court which ...


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.