Opinion
3:21-CV-0501-X-BK
02-21-2023
HARRY DONALD NICHOLSON, JR., Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, Respondent
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
BRANTLEY STARR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in this case. [Doc. No. 21]. A Texas jury found Petitioner Harry Donald Nicholson, Jr. guilty of aggravated assault and he unsuccessfully appealed his conviction in state court. He then filed this federal habeas application, asserting only one claim for habeas relief: that his “conviction [was] in violation of due process because the evidence [was] legally insufficient. The Magistrate Judge concluded that this claim lacks merit because a reasonable jury could have found that the evidence was sufficient to support Nicholson's conviction.
Doc. No. 21 at 2.
Doc. No. 1 at 6.
Nicholson filed objections, arguing that “[t]he jury could only speculate whether Nicholson perceived the risk” of his actions that caused the assault.Although Nicholson points to some evidence that he believes contradicts the jury's verdict, he does not counter the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that a reasonable jury could have believed the evidence that ultimately supported the verdict, and that the state presented enough evidence to support the jury's conclusion. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Nicholson's objections.
Doc. No. 22 at 6.
The District Court reviewed de novo those portions of the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation to which objection was made, and reviewed the remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the petition.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 21st day of February, 2023.