Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Nickles v. United States

Nickles v. United States

United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, Southern Division

January 7, 2021, Decided; January 7, 2021, Filed

CRIMINAL NO. 15-00014-CG-B; CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-00505-CG-B

Opinion

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pending before the Court are Petitioner Letrenton Napoleon Nickles's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and supporting memorandum (Docs. 74, 74-1), the Government's response in opposition (Doc. 95), and Nickles's reply (Doc. 100). This action was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(a)(2)(R), and Rule 8(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases and is now ready for consideration.1 Having carefully reviewed the record, the undersigned finds [*2]  that no evidentiary hearing is necessary for the disposition of this matter.2 Upon consideration, the undersigned hereby recommends that Nickles's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Docs. 74, 74-1) be DENIED, that this action be DISMISSED, and that judgment be entered in favor of Respondent, the United States of America, and against Petitioner, Letrenton Napoleon Nickles. The undersigned also recommends that in the event Nickles requests a certificate of appealability, it should be denied, as he is not entitled to appeal in forma pauperis. Finally, the undersigned recommends that the Government's Motion to Dismiss on the basis of untimeliness (Doc. 78) be DENIED as moot.

I. BACKGROUND

This matter arises from the October 2014 home invasion and carjacking of an elderly couple in Mobile, Alabama. In connection with the home invasion and carjacking, a federal grand jury indicted Nickles on January 29, 2015 and charged him with carjacking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119 (count one); brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (count two); and being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). (Doc. 1).

Nickles, through his appointed [*3]  counsel, filed a notice of intent to enter a blind guilty plea. (Doc. 32). Shortly thereafter, Nickles entered a plea of guilty to all three counts in the indictment. (Doc. 33; Doc. 39 at 23).

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23202 *; 2021 WL 416166

LETRENTON NAPOLEON NICKLES, # 14236-003, Petitioner, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

Subsequent History: Adopted by, Post-conviction relief denied at, Dismissed by, Certificate of appealability denied, Motion denied by, As moot, Judgment entered by Nickles v. United States, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22203, 2021 WL 415143 (S.D. Ala., Feb. 4, 2021)

Post-conviction relief denied at, Dismissed by, Motion denied by, As moot, Objection overruled by Nickles v. United States, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186622 (S.D. Ala., Sept. 29, 2021)

Prior History: United States v. Nickles, 667 Fed. Appx. 753, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12599 (11th Cir. Ala., July 8, 2016)

CORE TERMS

guilty plea, indictment, carjacking, firearm, ineffective, intimidation, sentence, violence, charges, gun, carjacking statute, certificate, inoperable, intent element, recommends, serious bodily injury, serious bodily harm, violent crime, per curiam, intent to cause death, undersigned, inside, assistance of counsel, required to prove, cause death, car keys, questions, report and recommendation, residuary clause, habeas petition