- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
What cocksucking faggot even unlocked this thread?
Inactive Nick Bate / Nickalaus B. Stoutzenberger - (Thread 3: JUDGEMENT DAY)
- Thread starter Karen Riley
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2013
Please... he got arrested, the nightmare is over... please don't dig up this horrible thread again, let's just pretend it never happened. We all had more than enough.
- Joined
- May 25, 2015
"Let this thread die, reeee" *Submits reply and keeps the thread alive*
Petronella
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2013
A lot of kids who are molested will try to do whatever they can to prevent it happening again, so often start to neglect their hygiene in the hopes it will make themselves too gross for anyone to find them attractive.
José Mourinho
The Special One
Forum Staff
Retired Staff
Global Moderator
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
Cow's in jail, time to move on to greener pastures.
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2015
Apparently Nick had another appeal denied?
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered June 5, 2018: (posted on 10/28/2018)
https://casetext.com/case/commonwealth-v-stoutzenberger-1
I´d love if @AnOminous or any law person could translate this for us!
Thx @yawning sneasel for unlocking
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered June 5, 2018: (posted on 10/28/2018)
https://casetext.com/case/commonwealth-v-stoutzenberger-1
MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered June 5, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0002801-2015 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., McLAUGHLIN, J., and STRASSBURGER, J. MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Nickalaus Stoutzenberger appeals from the order entered June 5, 2018, dismissing his petition for collateral relief filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
We derive the following statement of the factual and procedural background in this matter from the certified record, including the PCRA court's comprehensive opinion. See PCRA Ct. Opinion, filed May 29, 2018. In January 2016, following a bench trial, Stoutzenberger was convicted of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse with a child, as well as two counts of indecent assault of a person less than 13 years old. In part, the evidence against Stoutzenberger consisted of testimony from the victim (his sister) and a printout of an Internet chatroom conversation between Stoutzenberger and an individual named "Anna," in which he described a sexual encounter similar to that alleged by the victim. In April 2016, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 16½ to 40 years of incarceration. Stoutzenberger timely appealed, and this Court affirmed the judgment of sentence. Commonwealth v. Stoutzenberger , 168 A.3d 309 (Pa.Super. 2017) (unpublished memorandum). Stoutzenberger did not seek further appellate review.
Respectively, 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3123(b), 3126(a)(7).
In July 2017, Stoutzenberger filed pro se a PCRA petition asserting ineffective assistance of trial counsel. See PCRA Petition, 07/06/2017. The PCRA court appointed counsel, who thereafter filed a petition to withdraw and a Turner/Finley letter analyzing Stoutzenberger's claims and concluding they were without merit. The PCRA court denied counsel's petition and scheduled an evidentiary hearing.
See Commonwealth v. Turner , 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 198
; Commonwealth v. Finley , 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super. 198.
In January 2018, the PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing. In relevant part, Stoutzenberger provided testimony asserting that (1) the victim had a motive to fabricate her allegations against him, (2) the victim fabricated a claim against him during the investigation that preceded the filing of criminal charges, and (3) excerpts from a chat log, admittedly written by Stoutzenberger, were misleading. See Notes of Testimony, PCRA Hearing (N.T. PCRA), 01/25/2018, at 4-23.
Regarding the victim's alleged motive to falsely accuse him, Stoutzenberger acknowledged that he could not "remember specifically if there was a specific incident." Id. at 11. Nevertheless, Stoutzenberger described an incident in which the victim became "fairly angry" with him. Id. at 12. According to Stoutzenberger, after he refused to visit with the victim at their grandmother's home, he returned to discover that the victim had "poured baby oil all over my room and ruined a couple of video game controllers and paperwork and some CDRs that I had next to my Play Station II with the controllers." Id .
Stoutzenberg lived with his grandmother for several years. Id. at 13. --------
Stoutzenberger also testified that the victim fabricated a specific claim against him, i.e., that an abusive incident took place at his mother's store. Id. According to Stoutzenberger, the incident could not have happened because "the store didn't come into being until after the alleged incident took place." Id. at 11. However, on cross-examination, Stoutzenberger acknowledged that the Commonwealth did not charge him for any alleged incident that occurred at his mother's store. Id. at 21-22. Further, Stoutzenberger was not sure if he informed trial counsel of this concern. Id. at 22.
Finally, regarding the excerpts from the chat log, Stoutzenberger renewed assertions first made during his trial, that a sexual encounter described therein was fictional. Id. at 7-10. According to Stoutzenberger, the excerpts lacked proper context, and moreover, trial counsel should have highlighted inconsistencies between the chat log and the victim's accusations. Id. at 7-8, 18-20. On cross-examination, Stoutzenberger acknowledged that the abbreviated form of the chat log was discussed at trial. Id. at 23. Stoutzenberger also conceded that he was unsure whether "the unedited version exists." Id.
Stoutzenberger's trial counsel also testified at the hearing. Counsel could not recall whether Stoutzenberger had voiced concern over the apparent discrepancy between when his mother had opened a store and when an alleged incident had occurred there. Id. at 28. Nevertheless, counsel testified that he would have raised this concern if Stoutzenberger had told him. Id.
Following briefing by the parties, the PCRA court denied relief. Stoutzenberger timely appealed and filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. In response, the PCRA court directed our attention to its previously issued opinion.
Stoutzenberger raises the following issues on appeal:
[1.] Did the PCRA court err by failing to find that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to adduce evidence from [Stoutzenberger] tending to show that the complaining witness had a motive to lie?
[2.] Did the PCRA court err by failing to find that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance tending to show that the complaining witness lied to investigators?
[3.] Did the PCRA court err by failing to find that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to present evidence of [Stoutzenberger's] conversation on a chat log in its entirety, but rather allowed the Commonwealth to present only portions of the conversation?
Stoutzenberger's Br. at 4 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
We review an order denying a petition under the PCRA to determine whether the findings of the PCRA court are supported by record evidence and free of legal error. Commonwealth v. Ragan , 923 A.2d 1169, 1170 (Pa. 2007). We afford the court's factual findings deference unless there is no support for them in the certified record. Commonwealth v. Brown , 48 A.3d 1275, 1277 (Pa.Super. 2012) (citing Commonwealth v. Anderson , 995 A.2d 1184, 1189 (Pa.Super. 2010)). Further, we may affirm the PCRA court's decision on any grounds if the record supports it. See Commonwealth v. Reed , 107 A.3d 137, 140 (Pa.Super. 2014).
In each of his issues, Stoutzenberger asserts trial counsel was ineffective. To be eligible for relief for an ineffectiveness claim, a petitioner must establish that counsel's deficient performance "so undermined the truth-determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place." 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(ii). We presume counsel is effective. Commonwealth v. Cox , 983 A.2d 666, 678 (Pa. 2009). To overcome this presumption, a petitioner must establish that: (1) the underlying claim has arguable merit; (2) counsel lacked a reasonable basis for his act or omission; and (3) petitioner suffered actual prejudice. Commonwealth v. Treiber , 121 A.3d 435, 445 (Pa. 2015). In order to establish prejudice, a petitioner must demonstrate "that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's error or omission, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Commonwealth v. Koehler , 36 A.3d 121, 132 (Pa. 2012). A claim will be denied if the petitioner fails to meet any one of these prongs. See Commonwealth v. Jarosz , 152 A.3d 344, 350 (Pa.Super. 2016) (citing Commonwealth v. Daniels , 963 A.2d 409, 419 (Pa. 2009)). In particular, it is well settled that "[c]ounsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to pursue a meritless claim." Commonwealth v. Loner , 836 A.2d 125, 132 (Pa.Super. 2003) (en banc).
First, Stoutzenberger asserts that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to adduce evidence tending to show that the victim had a motive to fabricate the allegations against him. Stoutzenberger's Br. at 8. According to Stoutzenberger, as inculpatory evidence came primarily from the victim, it was vital to impeach her testimony. Id. He suggests that an incident described in his PCRA hearing testimony, in which the victim allegedly poured baby oil all over his room, demonstrated her animosity for him. Id. at 9. According to Stoutzenberger, had counsel presented this evidence at trial, the victim's credibility would have suffered, and the outcome of the proceeding would have been different. Id.
The PCRA court rejected this claim, noting that (1) Stoutzenberger's current testimony contradicts statements previously given to police, (2) Stoutzenberger failed to establish any temporal relevance to the baby oil incident, and (3) Stoutzenberger failed to establish that he had informed counsel of the incident. See PCRA Ct. Opinion at 8. We agree. There is no apparent relevance to this incident. Even if we assume that the victim at one time vandalized Stoutzenberger's room in retribution because he refused to visit with her, Stoutzenberger has failed to establish any temporal proximity between this incident and her allegations against him. Further, counsel is not ineffective for failing to impeach the credibility of a witness for the Commonwealth, absent some indication that counsel knew or should have known impeachment evidence exists. See , e.g., Commonwealth v. Bond , 819 A.2d 33, 45-46 (Pa. 2002) ("Counsel cannot be found ineffective for failing to introduce information uniquely within the knowledge of the defendant and his family which is not provided to counsel."). Thus, this claim is without merit.
Second, Stoutzenberger asserts that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present evidence that the victim lied to investigators. Stoutzenberger's Br. at 9. According to Stoutzenberger, the victim claimed that he had assaulted her inside a store leased by Stoutzenberger's mother. Id. However, Stoutzenberger argues, this allegation was demonstrably false because his mother did not lease the store until at least three years past the time frame of the alleged assaults. Id.
Again, we agree with the PCRA court's analysis:
t must be recognized that the minor victim never testified at trial to allegations of sexual abuse as having occurred at the mother's store. To the contrary, during her trial testimony, the minor victim testified to three separate instances of sexual abuse at locations other than the store of the mother. [Stoutzenberger] was never charged with any instance of purported sexual abuse alleged to have occurred at the mother's store. As such, [trial] counsel cannot be deemed to be ineffective for failing to introduce evidence of other uncharged instances of alleged sexual abuse at trial.
PCRA Ct. Opinion at 9 (internal citation to trial testimony omitted). Accordingly, we conclude that this claim is without merit.
Finally, Stoutzenberger preserved a claim asserting that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present evidence of [Stoutzenberger's] Internet chatroom conversation in its entirety, but rather allowed the Commonwealth to present only portions of the conversation. However, Stoutzenberger has failed to develop any argument in support of this assertion. See generally Stoutzenberger's Br. Accordingly, we deem the claim waived. See , e.g., Commonwealth v. Spotz , 18 A.3d 244, 282 (Pa. 2011) (concluding ineffectiveness claim waived where appellant failed to meaningfully discuss elements of claim); see also Pa.R.A.P. 2119. Absent waiver, we note further that Stoutzenberger conceded during his testimony at the PCRA hearing that a complete transcription of the chat log may not exist. Thus, this claim too is without merit.
As each of his claims is without merit, Stoutzenberger has failed to establish that trial counsel was ineffective. Loner , 836 A.2d at 132. Accordingly, we discern no error in the PCRA court's dismissal of Stoutzenberger's petition. Ragan , 923 A.2d at 1170.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /sneed/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 10/29/2018
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered June 5, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0002801-2015 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., McLAUGHLIN, J., and STRASSBURGER, J. MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Nickalaus Stoutzenberger appeals from the order entered June 5, 2018, dismissing his petition for collateral relief filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.
We derive the following statement of the factual and procedural background in this matter from the certified record, including the PCRA court's comprehensive opinion. See PCRA Ct. Opinion, filed May 29, 2018. In January 2016, following a bench trial, Stoutzenberger was convicted of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse with a child, as well as two counts of indecent assault of a person less than 13 years old. In part, the evidence against Stoutzenberger consisted of testimony from the victim (his sister) and a printout of an Internet chatroom conversation between Stoutzenberger and an individual named "Anna," in which he described a sexual encounter similar to that alleged by the victim. In April 2016, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 16½ to 40 years of incarceration. Stoutzenberger timely appealed, and this Court affirmed the judgment of sentence. Commonwealth v. Stoutzenberger , 168 A.3d 309 (Pa.Super. 2017) (unpublished memorandum). Stoutzenberger did not seek further appellate review.
Respectively, 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3123(b), 3126(a)(7).
In July 2017, Stoutzenberger filed pro se a PCRA petition asserting ineffective assistance of trial counsel. See PCRA Petition, 07/06/2017. The PCRA court appointed counsel, who thereafter filed a petition to withdraw and a Turner/Finley letter analyzing Stoutzenberger's claims and concluding they were without merit. The PCRA court denied counsel's petition and scheduled an evidentiary hearing.
See Commonwealth v. Turner , 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 198
; Commonwealth v. Finley , 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super. 198.In January 2018, the PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing. In relevant part, Stoutzenberger provided testimony asserting that (1) the victim had a motive to fabricate her allegations against him, (2) the victim fabricated a claim against him during the investigation that preceded the filing of criminal charges, and (3) excerpts from a chat log, admittedly written by Stoutzenberger, were misleading. See Notes of Testimony, PCRA Hearing (N.T. PCRA), 01/25/2018, at 4-23.
Regarding the victim's alleged motive to falsely accuse him, Stoutzenberger acknowledged that he could not "remember specifically if there was a specific incident." Id. at 11. Nevertheless, Stoutzenberger described an incident in which the victim became "fairly angry" with him. Id. at 12. According to Stoutzenberger, after he refused to visit with the victim at their grandmother's home, he returned to discover that the victim had "poured baby oil all over my room and ruined a couple of video game controllers and paperwork and some CDRs that I had next to my Play Station II with the controllers." Id .
Stoutzenberg lived with his grandmother for several years. Id. at 13. --------
Stoutzenberger also testified that the victim fabricated a specific claim against him, i.e., that an abusive incident took place at his mother's store. Id. According to Stoutzenberger, the incident could not have happened because "the store didn't come into being until after the alleged incident took place." Id. at 11. However, on cross-examination, Stoutzenberger acknowledged that the Commonwealth did not charge him for any alleged incident that occurred at his mother's store. Id. at 21-22. Further, Stoutzenberger was not sure if he informed trial counsel of this concern. Id. at 22.
Finally, regarding the excerpts from the chat log, Stoutzenberger renewed assertions first made during his trial, that a sexual encounter described therein was fictional. Id. at 7-10. According to Stoutzenberger, the excerpts lacked proper context, and moreover, trial counsel should have highlighted inconsistencies between the chat log and the victim's accusations. Id. at 7-8, 18-20. On cross-examination, Stoutzenberger acknowledged that the abbreviated form of the chat log was discussed at trial. Id. at 23. Stoutzenberger also conceded that he was unsure whether "the unedited version exists." Id.
Stoutzenberger's trial counsel also testified at the hearing. Counsel could not recall whether Stoutzenberger had voiced concern over the apparent discrepancy between when his mother had opened a store and when an alleged incident had occurred there. Id. at 28. Nevertheless, counsel testified that he would have raised this concern if Stoutzenberger had told him. Id.
Following briefing by the parties, the PCRA court denied relief. Stoutzenberger timely appealed and filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. In response, the PCRA court directed our attention to its previously issued opinion.
Stoutzenberger raises the following issues on appeal:
[1.] Did the PCRA court err by failing to find that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to adduce evidence from [Stoutzenberger] tending to show that the complaining witness had a motive to lie?
[2.] Did the PCRA court err by failing to find that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance tending to show that the complaining witness lied to investigators?
[3.] Did the PCRA court err by failing to find that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to present evidence of [Stoutzenberger's] conversation on a chat log in its entirety, but rather allowed the Commonwealth to present only portions of the conversation?
Stoutzenberger's Br. at 4 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
We review an order denying a petition under the PCRA to determine whether the findings of the PCRA court are supported by record evidence and free of legal error. Commonwealth v. Ragan , 923 A.2d 1169, 1170 (Pa. 2007). We afford the court's factual findings deference unless there is no support for them in the certified record. Commonwealth v. Brown , 48 A.3d 1275, 1277 (Pa.Super. 2012) (citing Commonwealth v. Anderson , 995 A.2d 1184, 1189 (Pa.Super. 2010)). Further, we may affirm the PCRA court's decision on any grounds if the record supports it. See Commonwealth v. Reed , 107 A.3d 137, 140 (Pa.Super. 2014).
In each of his issues, Stoutzenberger asserts trial counsel was ineffective. To be eligible for relief for an ineffectiveness claim, a petitioner must establish that counsel's deficient performance "so undermined the truth-determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place." 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(ii). We presume counsel is effective. Commonwealth v. Cox , 983 A.2d 666, 678 (Pa. 2009). To overcome this presumption, a petitioner must establish that: (1) the underlying claim has arguable merit; (2) counsel lacked a reasonable basis for his act or omission; and (3) petitioner suffered actual prejudice. Commonwealth v. Treiber , 121 A.3d 435, 445 (Pa. 2015). In order to establish prejudice, a petitioner must demonstrate "that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's error or omission, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Commonwealth v. Koehler , 36 A.3d 121, 132 (Pa. 2012). A claim will be denied if the petitioner fails to meet any one of these prongs. See Commonwealth v. Jarosz , 152 A.3d 344, 350 (Pa.Super. 2016) (citing Commonwealth v. Daniels , 963 A.2d 409, 419 (Pa. 2009)). In particular, it is well settled that "[c]ounsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to pursue a meritless claim." Commonwealth v. Loner , 836 A.2d 125, 132 (Pa.Super. 2003) (en banc).
First, Stoutzenberger asserts that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to adduce evidence tending to show that the victim had a motive to fabricate the allegations against him. Stoutzenberger's Br. at 8. According to Stoutzenberger, as inculpatory evidence came primarily from the victim, it was vital to impeach her testimony. Id. He suggests that an incident described in his PCRA hearing testimony, in which the victim allegedly poured baby oil all over his room, demonstrated her animosity for him. Id. at 9. According to Stoutzenberger, had counsel presented this evidence at trial, the victim's credibility would have suffered, and the outcome of the proceeding would have been different. Id.
The PCRA court rejected this claim, noting that (1) Stoutzenberger's current testimony contradicts statements previously given to police, (2) Stoutzenberger failed to establish any temporal relevance to the baby oil incident, and (3) Stoutzenberger failed to establish that he had informed counsel of the incident. See PCRA Ct. Opinion at 8. We agree. There is no apparent relevance to this incident. Even if we assume that the victim at one time vandalized Stoutzenberger's room in retribution because he refused to visit with her, Stoutzenberger has failed to establish any temporal proximity between this incident and her allegations against him. Further, counsel is not ineffective for failing to impeach the credibility of a witness for the Commonwealth, absent some indication that counsel knew or should have known impeachment evidence exists. See , e.g., Commonwealth v. Bond , 819 A.2d 33, 45-46 (Pa. 2002) ("Counsel cannot be found ineffective for failing to introduce information uniquely within the knowledge of the defendant and his family which is not provided to counsel."). Thus, this claim is without merit.
Second, Stoutzenberger asserts that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present evidence that the victim lied to investigators. Stoutzenberger's Br. at 9. According to Stoutzenberger, the victim claimed that he had assaulted her inside a store leased by Stoutzenberger's mother. Id. However, Stoutzenberger argues, this allegation was demonstrably false because his mother did not lease the store until at least three years past the time frame of the alleged assaults. Id.
Again, we agree with the PCRA court's analysis:
t must be recognized that the minor victim never testified at trial to allegations of sexual abuse as having occurred at the mother's store. To the contrary, during her trial testimony, the minor victim testified to three separate instances of sexual abuse at locations other than the store of the mother. [Stoutzenberger] was never charged with any instance of purported sexual abuse alleged to have occurred at the mother's store. As such, [trial] counsel cannot be deemed to be ineffective for failing to introduce evidence of other uncharged instances of alleged sexual abuse at trial.
PCRA Ct. Opinion at 9 (internal citation to trial testimony omitted). Accordingly, we conclude that this claim is without merit.
Finally, Stoutzenberger preserved a claim asserting that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present evidence of [Stoutzenberger's] Internet chatroom conversation in its entirety, but rather allowed the Commonwealth to present only portions of the conversation. However, Stoutzenberger has failed to develop any argument in support of this assertion. See generally Stoutzenberger's Br. Accordingly, we deem the claim waived. See , e.g., Commonwealth v. Spotz , 18 A.3d 244, 282 (Pa. 2011) (concluding ineffectiveness claim waived where appellant failed to meaningfully discuss elements of claim); see also Pa.R.A.P. 2119. Absent waiver, we note further that Stoutzenberger conceded during his testimony at the PCRA hearing that a complete transcription of the chat log may not exist. Thus, this claim too is without merit.
As each of his claims is without merit, Stoutzenberger has failed to establish that trial counsel was ineffective. Loner , 836 A.2d at 132. Accordingly, we discern no error in the PCRA court's dismissal of Stoutzenberger's petition. Ragan , 923 A.2d at 1170.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /sneed/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 10/29/2018
I´d love if @AnOminous or any law person could translate this for us!
Thx @yawning sneasel for unlocking
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
This is a post-conviction relief petition. It is the state equivalent of a habeas corpus petition and is only available after direct appeals have been denied. Nick apparently filed this himself pro se because while one is entitled to a direct appeal, and Nick apparently had state appointed counsel for the direct appeal, you aren't entitled to further collateral attacks on the conviction.
He came up with a bunch of nonsense he hadn't raised at trial and contradicted his own previous statements. He claimed counsel was ineffective for not raising these issues. He hadn't previously raised these on direct appeal, probably because they're meritless nonsense.
Despite this, considering how serious the conviction is, the state appointed PCRA counsel to assess the merits of these claims and assist if they had any merit. State appointed counsel withdrew as Nick's weaseling had no merit and it wasn't worth wasting time on.
Nick claimed his public defender should have challenged his accuser more aggressively and, specifically, raised this bizarre issue of some time the child victim supposedly vandalized his room with baby oil demonstrating animosity toward him. The court doesn't really care about this as to whether it's factually true (and just looking at it maybe the victim hated him for fucking raping her), but whether it was ineffective assistance of counsel, which is practically impossible to prove and wasn't in this case.
Similarly, he complained about the chat logs, something that should have happened at trial if it was going to at all. The fact is, though, he admitted the authenticity of the logs and just claims they were taken out of context, again, something he could have raised at trial but didn't.
And just speaking from someone who watched the original trial, and read the @Saul Goodman reports of the time, both @Saul Goodman and I actually commented on the fact that the public defender, one Danny Kaye, was quite aggressive with the accuser in a preliminary hearing and were somewhat surprised at this. However, that was the right time to do it. The accuser did not crack and remained credible.
So it was a quite reasonable defense strategy not to attack the witness aggressively at trial, because this can seriously backfire and make your already despicable scumbag of a guilty client look even worse and cause the jury to retaliate, especially if the victim witness doesn't back down at all and continues to maintain the guilt of your client.
Anyway the short of it is Nick didn't establish ineffective assistance of counsel.
The court wasn't looking at the facts since those have already been decided, just whether defense counsel was so incompetent that it deprived Nick of his due process right to a fair trial, which it didn't.
And as a personal opinion, defense counsel did about as good a job as he could with a reprehensible and obviously guilty client. He just wasn't going to win this one.
Nick is apparently intelligent enough to do some pro se crap like this and might ultimately wangle his way into some kind of a shorter sentence. It's not like he has anything better to do other than hope nobody stomps him to death and he gets out some time before he's senile.
I think any attack on his actual conviction is an exercise in pure futility and he's probably still going to remain where he is for the foreseeable future.
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2016
This guy is wasting the time of the courts and process while there are people who spent decades in jail for crimes they probably didn't commit because their counsel actually was incompetent (lazy, drunk, racist, etc). I'd call him an asshole for that but I guess it's pretty much the last item on his list of things to call him an asshole for, based on the intro to this thread.
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2018
Nick is the only lolcow that nearly made me puke.
I'm glad he's gone.
I'm glad he's gone.
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2014
They should extend his fucking sentence for having the gall to try and petition.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2015
I was hoping that this thread got updated that he died in prison.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2015
I had this feeling everytime it was updated. Sorry its just something ordinary.
But its so interesting to think about how he sits in his little cell and grinding his gears.
I agree with @AnOminous that Nicki is intelligent enough to find little glimmers of hope for him to get a shorter sentence.
Also his aunt is probably enabling him in that.
Btw talking about ordinary updates, his grandma died a while ago:
https://lancasteronline.com/obituar...cle_1fc3195a-7127-5c74-986e-a778ac3b493b.html
(Currently I cant access this site because I live in the EU and cant switch ip atm, can someone please check it if its the right link?)
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2015
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2013
Holy hell that appeal is sad and hilarious.
My favourite part is where he treats this like a Phoenix Wright game and points out a contradiction In the victims testimony about being abused in nick’s mothers store despite the store not being owned until after the incident and the pcra counsel is just like “uhhh the victim never mentioned the store ever, in any way, shape or form.”
Stay stupid, Nick.
My favourite part is where he treats this like a Phoenix Wright game and points out a contradiction In the victims testimony about being abused in nick’s mothers store despite the store not being owned until after the incident and the pcra counsel is just like “uhhh the victim never mentioned the store ever, in any way, shape or form.”
Stay stupid, Nick.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2014
I'm shocked that he is still alive and still has the presence of mind to file a petition.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2018
He might've gotten help by other prisoners, they do this sort of thing in prison as far as I am aware, I mean it's not exactly like they have a lot to do. Also all things considered, prison probably did him some good. From all what I read on the dude, he was seriously lacking in borders and generally being forced to have to deal with reality.
It should come at no surprise re: what a piece of shit he is, but he's throwing the kid he raped under the bus with all this too. I hope this legalese "lol no" hits him like a sack of bricks.
I wonder what he looks like nowadays, because they will certainly make him shower. If not the guards, then the other prisoners. There's no bigger prisoner social faux pas than stinking the joint up.
It should come at no surprise re: what a piece of shit he is, but he's throwing the kid he raped under the bus with all this too. I hope this legalese "lol no" hits him like a sack of bricks.
I wonder what he looks like nowadays, because they will certainly make him shower. If not the guards, then the other prisoners. There's no bigger prisoner social faux pas than stinking the joint up.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
You're forgetting one thing.
Sick Nick is a paedo.
The only thing lower than a paedo in prison, are those that hurt their mothers. No prisoner wants to help Nick Bate.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2018
Nick has committed two wig-splittable actions, according to Big Herc:
He's a chomo
He stinks
He must be in protective custody or something. There have been cases where chomos not lasting a week inside before being swarmed by prisoners.
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2018
So, if this appeal thing is the legal equivalent of grasping at straws, what pushed him to do it? The endless prison buttrape or the dentist finally removing his disgusting teeth?