Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Roberson v. Chapman

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Eastern Division

October 15, 2014

TIMOTHY ROBERSON, Petitioner,
v.
ARVIL

ORDER ADDRESSING PENDING MOTIONS, TRANSFERRING SUCCESSIVE PETITION TO UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT AND CLOSING CASE

J. DANIEL BREEN, Chief District Judge.

Before the Court is the second amended petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for writ of habeas corpus by a person in state custody ("Second Amended Petition"), filed by Petitioner, Timothy Roberson, Tennessee Department of Correction prisoner number 244376, who is currently an inmate at the South Central Correctional Facility ("SCCF") in Clifton, Tennessee (ECF No. 23), [1] and the motion to expedite proceedings (ECF No. 25) and motion for status hearing (ECF No. 26). For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the motion to expedite proceedings, DENIES the motion for status hearing, and TRANSFERS this successive petition to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

I. BACKGROUND

A. State Court Procedural History

On January 31, 1995, Roberson was convicted after a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Gibson County, Tennessee, of felony murder and especially aggravated robbery. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole on the murder charge and to a consecutive term of fifteen years as a Range I standard offender on the especially aggravated robbery. The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals ("TCCA") affirmed. State v. Roberson, No. 02C01-9508-CC-00245, 1997 WL 736513 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 1, 1997), appeal denied (Tenn. June 29, 1998).

On February 12, 1999, Roberson filed a state post-conviction petition in which he alleged that his trial counsel had rendered ineffective assistance. The post-conviction court denied relief after an evidentiary hearing, and the TCCA affirmed. Roberson v. State, No. W2001-00549-CCA-R3-PC, 2002 WL 1592725 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 12, 2002).

On November 4, 2002, the inmate filed a motion in the Gibson County Circuit Court seeking relief from the order denying his post-conviction petition. On May 22, 2003, he moved to amend his original motion and to reopen his post-conviction case. Roberson filed a petition seeking a writ of error coram nobis on June 8, 2005. On December 4, 2006, the trial court denied the motions pertaining to post-conviction relief and dismissed the petition for coram nobis relief as time barred. The TCCA held on appeal that it was without jurisdiction to address the motion to reopen the post-conviction proceeding and affirmed the dismissal of the coram nobis petition. Roberson v. State, No. W2007-00230-CCA-R3-PC, 2007 WL 3286681 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 7, 2007), appeal denied (Tenn. Apr. 14, 2008).

On April 28, 2010, Roberson filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 29-21-101 to -130, in the Davidson County Criminal Court. The trial court denied relief, and Petitioner did not appeal. He filed a second habeas petition on June 28, 2010 in the Davidson County Criminal Court in which he challenged the validity of the indictment, the jurisdiction of the trial court, and the jury verdict. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim. The TCCA affirmed. Roberson v. State, No. M2011-00130-CCA-R3-HC, 2011 WL 4959988 (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 19, 2011), appeal denied (Tenn. Feb. 16, 2012).

B. Case Number 08-1175

On July 14, 2008, Roberson filed his initial petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. (Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Roberson v. Lindamood, No. 08-1175-JDB-egb (W.D. Tenn.), ECF No. 1.) His petition presented the following issues:

1. "That Due Process was violated when the trial court denied the petitioner's right to counsel at a critical stage" ( id. at PageID 7);
2. "That Due Process was violated when the trial court admitted in evidence an involuntary confession in violation of Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966)" ( id. );
3. "That Due Process was violated when the petitioner was denied the right to a fair trial when the State of Tennessee withheld exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373, [sic] U.S. 83 S.Ct. 1194 (1963)" ( id. at PageID 8); and
4. "That a constitutional violation, ineffective assistance, [sic] of counsel, probably resulted in the conviction of one who is actually ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.