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.

Carroll v. Lindamood

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

March 16, 2017

SCOTT CARROLL Petitioner,
v.
CHERRY LINDAMOOD, Warden Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM

          Kevin H. Sharp Chief District Judge

         The 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 habeas corpus.[1]

         I. Background

         On 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.

         On 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.

         In 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.

         On 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 courts.

         II. Procedural History

         On 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 include:

1) the trial court erred when the prosecution was allowed to amend the indictment by changing the date of the offense (at pg. 10);
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. 34);
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;[2]
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 ...

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.