GEARY L. DANDRIDGE, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES BLACK, WARDEN, NEBRASKA STATE PENITENTIARY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding no constitutional merit to the appellant's claims.
Appellant was convicted of robbery, use of a firearm, and being an habitual criminal, with his conviction affirmed by the Nebraska Supreme Court. He l…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Excessive Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Geary L. Dandridge appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. After a jury trial, appellant was convicted of robbery and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony as well as being an habitual criminal. He was sentenced to consecutive prison terms of ten years on each count. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal to the Nebraska Supreme Court. See State v. Dandridge, 209 Neb. 885, 312 N.W. 2d 286 (1981).
In his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, appellant asserted that he was denied due process by a variety of alleged trial errors as well as the prosecutor’s failure to disclose certain allegedly exculpatory discovery material. Appellant also challenged his sentence as excessive and as in violation of Nebraska law.
The district court referred the matter to a United States magistrate who thoroughly reviewed all of appellant’s claims. The district court approved and adopted the magistrate’s report and recommendation, con- eluding de novo that appellant’s claims were without constitutional merit.
We have carefully studied the record, including the magistrate’s and district court’s opinions and the parties’ briefs and arguments. We find that the judgment of the district court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous and that no error of law appears. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the district court’s opinion. See 8TH CIR.R. 14.