United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
KEVIN H. SHARP, Chief District Judge.
The petitioner, proceeding pro se, is an inmate at the Hardeman County Correctional Facility in Whiteville, Tennessee. He brings this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 against the Tennessee Department of Correction and its Commissioner, Derrick Schofield, seeking a writ of habeas corpus.
On February 3, 2012, the petitioner entered a best interest plea of guilty to the charges of aggravated assault and attempted second degree murder. Docket Entry No.25-4 at pgs.3-11. For these crimes, he received consecutive sentences of three years and eight years, respectively. The sentences were suspended to time served and the petitioner was placed in a community corrections program. Id. at pg.6.
Having pled guilty, there was no direct appeal of the convictions taken by the petitioner. He did, however, file a pro se petition for post-conviction relief in the Criminal Court of Sumner County. Docket Entry No.31-1 at pgs.3-37. At the conclusion of an evidentiary hearing, the trial judge denied the application for post-conviction relief. Id. at pg.108; see also Docket Entry No. 31-3 at pgs.75-81.
On appeal, the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief. Docket Entry No.25-8. The Tennessee Supreme Court later rejected petitioner's request for additional post-conviction review. Docket Entry No.31-8 at pg.1.
The petitioner then filed a motion to reopen the post-conviction proceedings. Docket Entry No.25-11. That motion was summarily denied by the trial court. Docket Entry No.25-12.
II. Procedural History
On July 1, 2014, the petitioner filed the instant petition (Docket Entry No.1) for writ of habeas corpus. Having liberally construed the petition, the Court finds that the petitioner has set forth seven claims for relief. These claims include:
1) petitioner's rights under the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments were violated when he was unlawfully arrested, did not receive Miranda warnings, inadmissible testimony was presented to the Grand Jury, alleged police misconduct during the arrest and investigation, entrapment and a violation of HIPPA privacy requirements;
2) trial counsel was ineffective for
a) failure to interview and subpoena witnesses prior to the preliminary hearing;
b) coercing the petitioner to accept a plea deal;
c) conflict of interest - counsel was a former ...