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.

Guzak v. Parris

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

November 7, 2016

CASEY JAMES GUZAK, Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL PARRIS, Warden Respondent. v.

          MEMORANDUM

          Aleta A. Trauger, United States District Judge

         The petitioner, proceeding pro se, is an inmate at the Northwest Correctional Complex in Tiptonville, Tennessee. He brings this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 against Michael Parris, Warden of the facility, seeking a writ of habeas corpus.

         I. Background

         On January 12, 2015, the petitioner pled guilty in the Criminal Court of Wilson County to possession of heroin with the intent to sell or deliver. Docket Entry No. 22-1 at pg.117. For this crime, he received a sentence of twelve years in prison. Id.

         Having pled guilty, there was no direct appeal of the conviction taken by the petitioner. Later, though, the petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief in the Criminal Court of Wilson County. Id. at pgs.121-129.

         The petition for post-conviction relief was summarily denied without prejudice. Id. at pg. 145. Once again, there was no appeal taken to challenge the denial of post-conviction relief.

         II. Procedural History

         On July 14, 2016, the petitioner filed the instant petition (Docket Entry No.l) for federal habeas corpus relief.[1] The petition contains three claims for relief. These claims include

1) the petitioner's sentence is incorrect;
2) the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel; and
3) vice officers tampered with the evidence.

         Upon its receipt, the Court conducted a preliminary review of the petition and determined that the petitioner had stated a colorable claim for relief. Accordingly, an order (Docket Entry No.9) was entered directing the respondent to file an answer, plead or otherwise respond to the petition. Rule 4, Rules - - § 2254 Cases.

         Presently before the Court is the respondent's Motion to Dismiss (Docket Entry No.20), to which the petitioner has offered no reply. Having carefully considered this pleading and the record as a whole, it appears that an evidentiary hearing is not needed in this matter. See Smith v. United States, 348 F.3d 545, 550 (6th Cir. 2003) (an evidentiary hearing is not required when the record conclusively shows that the petitioner is entitled to no relief) . Therefore, the Court shall dispose of the petition as the law and justice require. Rule 8, Rules - - § 2254 Cases.

         III. Timeliness ...


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.