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.

Hollis v. Donahue

United States District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division

March 3, 2015

HORACE E. HOLLIS, Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL DONAHUE, WARDEN, Respondent.

MEMORANDUM

Todd Campbell United States 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 Michael Donahue, Warden of the facility, seeking a writ of habeas corpus.

In February, 2011, a Dickson County jury found the petitioner guilty of child rape (2 counts) and aggravated sexual battery (2 counts). By operation of law, the aggravated sexual battery convictions were merged with the child rape convictions. For his crimes, the petitioner received two consecutive sentences of twenty (20) years in prison.

On appeal, the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions. No further direct review of the convictions was sought by the petitioner.

In December, 2012, however, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the Circuit Court of Dickson County. Following an evidentiary hearing, the petitioner was denied post-conviction relief. An appeal of this ruling is currently pending in the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.

On December 18, 2014, the petitioner filed the instant petition (Docket Entry No.1) for writ of habeas corpus. In the petition, he sets forth nine primary claims for relief. More specifically, the petitioner alleges that:

1) pre-trial counsel were ineffective;
2) trial counsel was ineffective;
3) appellate counsel was ineffective;
4) denial of a speedy trial;
5) convictions obtained in violation of the prohibition against double jeopardy;
6) hearsay testimony was allowed in violation of the Confrontation Clause;
7) the evidence was insufficient to support 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.