Tyrrell v. Frakes

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionPDF versionPDF version

Tyrrell v. Frakes

Additional Case Names


Case Number
Call Date
February 3, 2021
Case Time
9:00 AM
Court Number
Case Location
Court Type
District Court
Case Summary

S-20-0425 Gregory Tyrrell (Appellant) v. Scott Frakes, Director, Dept. of Corrections et al.

Lancaster County District Court, Hon. Jodi L. Nelson

Attorneys:  Gregory Tyrrell, pro se – James A. Campbell (Solicitor General, Office of the Attorney General, for the State of Nebraska)

Civil: Habeas Corpus

Proceedings Below:  The district court held that litigants who do not contest the Parole Board’s jurisdiction over their parole cannot use a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2801 to overturn the Board’s decision revoking their parole.  

Issues on Appeal:  Appellant assigns the following errors, whether the district court erred 1) when it failed to determine sua sponte to issue the writ of habeas corpus; 2) in failing to issue a writ of habeas corpus; 3) in sustaining the Appellees’ motion to quash; 4) when it overruled the Appellant’s motion for reconsideration; 5) when it overruled the Appellant’s motion to amend; and Appellant also asserts that it is plain error that the Nebraska Parole Board 6) revoked the Appellant’s parole for lawful communications on social media; 7) revoked Appellant’s parole for violating a condition of parole that is unconstitutionally vague; 8) placed a special condition of parole on the Appellant that was unduly restrictive of his liberty and not specifically related to the cause of his offense; 9) failed to find that Appellant’s nonpayment of parole fees was a deliberate refusal or that Appellant was financially capable of making payments; 10) revoked Appellant’s parole for nonpayment of parole supervision fees accrued more than 8.5 years prior to his revocation hearing; 11) revoked the Appellant’s parole for a technical violation; 12) failed to disclose evidence used against the Appellant at his parole revocation hearing; 13) determined the Appellant had violated two conditions of parole in addition to the conditions Appellant was alleged to have violated; and 14) was not “neutral and detached” and subjected the Appellant to an adversarial hearing in violation of Nebraska Administrative Rules and Regulation Title 270, Chapter 11, Section 6. 

Schedule Code