United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Columbia Division
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR. CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
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).
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).
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
1) the evidence was insufficient to support Petitioner's
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
3) post-conviction counsel was ineffective because he failed
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
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
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 ...