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.

Shipp v. Holloway

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

June 1, 2017

MICHAEL JARVIS SHIPP Petitioner,
v.
JAMES HOLLOWAY Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR. CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Michael Jarvis Shipp, proceeding pro se, is an inmate at the Northeast Correctional Complex in Mountain City, Tennessee. He brings this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 against James Holloway, Warden of the West Tennessee State Penitentiary, seeking a writ of habeas corpus.[1]

         I. Background

         On May 24, 2011, a jury in Maury County found the Petitioner guilty of first degree premeditated murder and aggravated robbery. (Doc. No. 28-1 at 65-66). He received concurrent sentences of life imprisonment plus eight years. (Id. at 67-68). On direct appeal, the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions. (Doc. No. 28-9). The Petitioner made no further effort to seek direct review of the convictions in the Tennessee Supreme Court. In June 2013, however, he filed a pro se petition for state post-conviction relief in the Criminal Court of Maury County. (Doc. No. 28-10 at 3-12). Following the appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied Petitioner post-conviction relief. (Doc. No. 28-10 at 22-25).

         During the pendency of a post-conviction appeal, the Petitioner filed a pro se petition for state habeas corpus relief. (Doc. No. 28-21 at 4-12). The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief (Doc. No. 28-20). Shortly thereafter, the state habeas petition was summarily denied. (Doc. No. 28-21 at 25-27). An appeal of this ruling was then dismissed (Doc. No. 28-22).

         II. Procedural History

         On February 19, 2015, the Petitioner initiated this action with the filing of a Petition (Doc. No. 1) for writ of habeas corpus. The Petition consists of six claims. These claims include:

1) the evidence was insufficient to support Petitioner's convictions;
2) trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to
a) file a motion to suppress Petitioner's statement to the police; and
b) interview or present witnesses (Tiffany Conger and Deanna Hopkins);[2]
3) post-conviction counsel was ineffective because he failed to
a) “present and preserve” two alternate theories of ineffective assistance of trial counsel;
b) subpoena witnesses to testify at the post-conviction evidentiary hearing; and
c) present all issues during the post-conviction appeal.[3]

         By order entered May 5, 2015, the Respondent was directed to file an answer, plead or otherwise respond to the Petition. (Doc. No. 14). Presently before the Court is Respondent's Answer (Doc. No. 29), to which the Petitioner has offered no reply.

         Having carefully considered the Petition, Respondent's Answer and the expanded record, it appears that an evidentiary hearing is not needed in this matter. See Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 474 (2007). Therefore, the Court shall dispose of 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.