No. 25-5077

In Re Deryl Nelson

Lower Court: N/A
Docketed: 2025-07-10
Status: Dismissed
Type: IFP
Relisted (3)IFP
Tags: arrest-warrant complaint-validity fourth-amendment ineffective-assistance judicial-hearing probable-cause
Key Terms:
FourthAmendment DueProcess CriminalProcedure HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2025-10-17 (distributed 3 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Did the state appeals court err in finding probable cause for an arrest warrant issued without a sworn complaint or judicial finding of probable cause?

Question Presented (from Petition)

The magistrate issued an arrest warrant without probable cause based on a complaint that was not sworn to but instead signed by an unknown person functioned as the complaining witness to make it appear that the arrest warrant was properly issued. This act and omission violated numerous federal laws including the Fourth Amendment that requires an arrest warrant to be issued upon a finding of probable cause supported by Oath of affirmation. I. DID THE STATE APPEALS COURT ERR WHEN IT RE ACHED A DECISION THAT THE COMPLAINT MET THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT ABSENT OF A OUDICIAL FINDING OF PROBABLE CAUSE? II. DID THE STATE APPEALS COURT ERR WHEN IT RE ACHED A DECISION THAT THE PROBABLE CAUSE WAS ESTABLISHED TO CONVICT PETITIONER AT PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION RATHER THAN DECID ING WHETHER WAS THERE PROBABLE CAUSE AT THE FIRST OUDICIAL HEARING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE ARREST WARRANT? III. DID THE STATE APPEALS COURT ERR WHEN IT RE ACHED A DECISION THAT PETITIONER DID NOT RECEIVE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHERE THE RECORD SHOW COUNSEL FAILED TO AT TACK THE VALIDITY OF THE COMPLAINT AND WAR RANT VIA EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND WITHDREW THE MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING AFTER THE JUDGE INSISTED THAT THE HEARING WAS NEEDED? 1

Docket Entries

2025-10-20
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).
2025-10-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/17/2025.
2025-10-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/10/2025.
2025-09-29
Rescheduled.
2025-07-17
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2025.
2025-03-25

Attorneys

Deryl Nelson
Deryl Dude Nelson — Petitioner
Deryl Dude Nelson — Petitioner