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.

Workman v. Baca

United States District Court, D. Nevada

May 24, 2019

WILLIAM WORKMAN, Petitioner,
v.
ISIDRO BACA, et al., Respondents.

          ORDER

          MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This pro se habeas matter under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is before the Court on Respondents' motion to dismiss certain grounds in Petitioner William Workman's (“Petitioner” or “Workman”) amended petition (ECF Nos. 13, 18). Workman did not file an opposition or respond to the motion in any way. As discussed below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.

         I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

         On January 4, 2010, a jury convicted Workman of burglary (Exh. 21).[1] The state district court adjudicated him a habitual criminal and sentenced him to life with the possibility of parole after 10 years. (Exh. 26.) Judgment of conviction was entered on March 25, 2010. (Exh. 29.)

         The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed Workman's conviction on February 9, 2011, and remittitur issued on March 11, 2011. (Exhs. 48, 50.)

         On February 23, 2017, the Nevada Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Workman's state postconviction petition. (Exh. 143.) Remittitur issued on March 21, 2017. (Exhs. 143, 148.)

         On or about August 22, 2017, Workman dispatched his federal habeas petition for filing (ECF No. 13). He asserted claims of ineffective assistance of counsel as follows:

Ground 1(a): counsel failed to conduct pretrial investigation;
Ground 1(b): counsel failed to call certain witnesses in support of Workman's defense;
Ground 1(c): counsel failed to present evidence that Workman required shelter as a result of his illness (ECF No. 13 at 3-4).[2]

         With leave of the Court, Workman filed supplemental claims on July 24, 2018. Thus, the operative petition is an amended petition comprised of the original petition (hereafter referred to as grounds 1(a)-(c) in ECF No. 13) and the supplemental claims (hereafter referred to as grounds 2-4 in ECF No. 18). The supplemental claims are:

Ground 2: counsel was ineffective for failing to object when a potential juror stated, “He must have done something wrong to be sitting in that chair;”
Ground 3: The state engaged in prosecutorial misconduct when the prosecutor said that Workman had been previously convicted of felony failure to register, 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.