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.

Nard v. Superintendent

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division

March 21, 2018

OLABISI NARD, Petitioner,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT, Respondent.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          JON E. DEGUILIO JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

         Olabisi Nard, a pro se prisoner, filed an amended habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction and 40 year sentence on June 30, 2003, in the Allen County Superior Court under cause number 02D04-0205-FA-0054 for attempted murder. ECF 4.

         I. BACKGROUND

         In deciding the petition, the court must presume the facts set forth by the state courts are correct unless they are rebutted with clear and convincing evidence. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). Here, Nard does not dispute the Court of Appeals of Indiana's summary:

On May 27, 2002, the State filed an Information, charging Nard with attempted murder. Nard was subsequently convicted and is currently serving a forty year sentence in Westville Correctional Facility, Indiana. In 2015, Nard filed a verified petition for writ of habeas corpus arguing that confinement was in violation of his rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution because he was charged by information rather than being indicted by a grand jury. On July 16, 2015, the trial court denied Nard's habeas corpus petition, holding that under Indiana Code section 35-34-1-1 the State may bring charges via indictment or information.

Nard v. State, Cause No. 46A04-1508-MI-1147, slip op. at *2-3 (Ind.Ct.App. May 20, 2016); ECF 7-11. The Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed the denial of Nard's state habeas petition. ECF 7-11. On August 25, 2016, the Indiana Supreme Court denied Nard's petition for transfer. ECF 7-8 at 1.

         On January 16, 2017, Nard signed and placed in the prison mailing system this amended petition for writ of habeas corpus. ECF 4 at 5. In it, Nard raises the same issue he raised in his state habeas proceedings: whether Indiana's charging statute violates the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

         II. STANDARD FOR HABEAS REVIEW

         “Federal habeas review . . . exists as a guard against extreme malfunctions in the state criminal justice systems, not a substitute for ordinary error correction through appeal.” Woods v. Donald, 135 S.Ct. 1372, 1376 (2015) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

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 be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim-
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or
(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

[This] standard is intentionally difficult to meet. We have explained that clearly established Federal law for purposes of ยง2254(d)(1) includes only the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of this Court's decisions. And an unreasonable application of those holdings must be objectively unreasonable, not merely wrong; even clear error will not suffice. To satisfy this high bar, a habeas petitioner is required to show that the state court's ruling on the claim being presented in federal court was so lacking in ...

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.