United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Northeastern Division
H. Sharp Chief District Judge
petitioner, proceeding pro se, is an inmate at the
South Central Correctional Center in Clifton, Tennessee. He
brings this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 against
Cherry Lindamood, Warden of the facility, seeking a writ of
August 19, 2011, a jury in DeKalb County found the petitioner
guilty of initiating a process intended to result in the
manufacture of methamphetamine and reckless endangerment.
Doc. No. 20-5 at pgs. 45-48. The reckless endangerment
conviction was subsequently dismissed on sufficiency grounds.
Doc. No. 20-1 at pg. 94. For the remaining conviction, the
petitioner was sentenced as a career offender to thirty (30)
years in prison. Doc. No. 20-7 at pg. 24.
direct appeal, the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals
affirmed the conviction. Doc. No. 20-12. The Tennessee
Supreme Court later denied petitioner's request for
additional review. Doc. No. 20-14.
January, 2014, the petitioner filed a pro se
petition for state post-conviction relief in the Criminal
Court of DeKalb County. Doc. No. 20-15 at pgs. 5-13.
Following the appointment of counsel, an amendment of the
petition and an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied
the petitioner's request for post-conviction relief.
Id. at pgs. 35-44.
appeal, the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the
denial of post-conviction relief. Doc. No. 20-20. There was
no further review of the conviction sought in the state
October 27, 2016, the petitioner initiated this action with
the pro se filing of a petition (Doc. No. 1) for
writ of habeas corpus in the Western District of Tennessee.
The petition consists of sixteen (16) claims. These claims
1) the trial court erred when the prosecution was allowed to
amend the indictment by changing the date of the offense (at
2) the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction
(at pg. 23);
3) the trial court erred when it refused to instruct the jury
as to lesser included offenses (pg. 27);
4) it was error to allow the introduction of an inventory
list of ingredients and photographs of the crime scene (pg.
5) the petitioner should not have been sentenced as a career
offender (pg. 37);
6) the trial court erred by refusing to suppress evidence
taken during a search of the home where the petitioner was
arrested (pg. 42);
7) the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of
trial counsel when his attorney;
a) failed to file a motion to dismiss or request a jury
instruction based upon the destruction of evidence recovered
from the meth lab (pg. 45);
b) neglected to file a motion in limine based upon the
prosecution's failure to preserve “any sample or
test results related to any substances which the State
claimed to be involved in the process of creating
methamphetamine” (pg. 50);
c) did not object to testimony that items such as those found
in the petitioner's possession were used in the meth
producing process (pg. 51);
d) failed to investigate an “other person who
manufactured the drugs at the crime scene prior to
Petitioner's arrest upon Petitioner's tip” (pg.
51); e) neglected to have the burners from the crime scene
tested (pg. 51);
f) failed to object to the introduction of Exhibit 3, an
inventory of items found in or near the petitioner's
backpacks (pg. 51); g) did not introduce photos of the
backpacks (pg. 51);
h) failed to adequately cross examine Jeremy Taylor (pg. 51);
i) failed to seek a jury instruction on the prosecution's
duty to preserve ...