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.

Cloyd v. State

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division

October 29, 2014

LAROY JONATHAN CLOYD, Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF TENNESSEE, Respondent.

MEMORANDUM

ALETA A. TRAUGER, District Judge.

The petitioner, Laroy Jonathan Cloyd, proceeding pro se, is currently incarcerated at the the Metro-Davidson County Detention Facility in Nashville, Tennessee. Presently pending before the court are Cloyd's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Docket No. 1), motion to subpoena attorneys (Docket No.17), and motion to subpoena court transcripts (Docket No. 18). Also pending is a Motion to Dismiss filed by the State of Tennessee. (Docket No. 13).

I. Background

On April 5, 2013, Cloyd pleaded guilty to a single count of burglary in the Davidson County Criminal Court. (Docket No. 14, Add. 1 at p. 2). He agreed to serve a six-year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Corrections. ( Id., Add. 1 at p. 3). The petitioner did not appeal from his conviction or sentence. (Docket No. 1 at p. 2).

On February 19, 2014, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the Davidson County Criminal Court. (Docket No. 14, Add. 1 at pp. 148-56). He filed subsequent petitions for post-conviction relief on April 22, 2014, and June 6, 2014. ( Id., Add. 1 at pp. 35-43, 59-66). On April 2, 2014, the post-conviction court entered an order denying relief, stating, "This Court has reviewed the judgment and finds that [the petitioner] was awarded the pre-trial credit to which he was entitled and that this is the limit of the Court's jurisdiction on these issues." (Docket No. 14, Add. 1 at pp. 44-45). On July 23, 2014, the post-conviction court entered another order pertaining to the petition filed June 6, 2014, finding that the petition stated colorable claims with regard to the allegations of an involuntary guilty plea and ineffective assistance of counsel. ( Id., Add. 1 at pp. 32-33). The post-conviction court appointed counsel and the matter remains pending. ( Id. )

On July 23, 2014, Cloyd filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in this court. (Docket No. 1). He asserts that his guilty plea was involuntary and that he received ineffective assistance from his plea counsel. ( Id. at 4-5). On August 1, 2014, the court ordered the respondent to file a response to the petition. (Docket No. 4). The respondent then filed a Motion to Dismiss based on the petitioner's failure to exhaust in state court the two claims he raises in the instant petition. (Docket No. 13).

II. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

It is axiomatic that one may not seek federal habeas corpus relief until he has exhausted all available state remedies or demonstrated their inadequacies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(B); Hannah v. Conley, 49 F.3d 1193, 1196 (6th Cir. 1995). Any alleged constitutional deprivation must be asserted through the state appellate process. O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999). "Because the exhaustion doctrine is designed to give the state courts a full and fair opportunity to resolve federal constitutional claims before those claims are presented to the federal courts, [the Supreme Court] conclude[s] that state prisoners must give the state courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the State's established appellate review process." Id. The burden is on the petitioner to demonstrate compliance with the exhaustion requirement or that the state procedure would be futile. Rust v. Zent, 17 F.3d 155, 160 (6th Cir. 1994).

Section 2254(b)(1) states in pertinent part:

An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that-
(A) the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State; or
(B)(i) there is an absence of available State corrective process; or
(ii) circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect the ...

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.