United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
ERNEST DODD, SR. Plaintiff,
CHERRY LINDAMOOD, Defendant.
JEFFERY S. FRENSLEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Willard Dodd, Sr. (“Petitioner”), a state
prisoner, filed this action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
seeking a writ of habeas corpus to set aside his convictions
for initiating a process intended to result in the
manufacture of methamphetamine and attempt to promote the
manufacture of methamphetamine. See Docket 23.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Discovery (Docket No. 46),
which was denied in part and granted in part by the Court.
See Docket No. 54. Through discovery permitted by
the Court, Petitioner identified a written statement in the
prosecutor’s file that was not given to Petitioner
during the discovery process in state court. Docket No. 57,
p. 5, n. 2.
the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Evidentiary
Hearing, or, in the Alternative, Motion to Expand the Record,
in which Petitioner contends that he should be allowed to
present evidence substantiating his claim under Brady v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) that the State withheld
material evidence from Petitioner during discovery in state
court. See Docket No. 57, pp. 6-9. Relatedly, in
Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended
Petition, he asks the Court for permission to amend his
petition again to include a claim based on an alleged
violation of the rule of law established in Brady.
Docket No. 59, p. 1. Respondent has filed a consolidated
Response in opposition to the motions. Docket No. 68.
Petitioner has filed a Reply. Docket No. For the reasons set
forth below, each of Petitioner’s motions are DENIED.
facts relevant to Petitioner’s underlying case are as
In July of 2010, the Warren County Sheriff's Office was
running surveillance on the apartment of Lance and Connie
Vogel. Mrs. Vogel had been used by the police before as an
informant for information about different people and crimes
on the street level. During the surveillance, Marc Martin, an
investigator, saw Ronnie Minton and Appellant
[“Petitioner”] leaving the Vogel's apartment.
As Appellant left, Detective Tony Jenkins who was assisting
in the surveillance of the apartment went to the door of the
apartment and immediately smelled a strong odor of
methamphetamine and air freshener. Investigator Martin spoke
with Appellant, whom he had known for quite some time.
Investigator Martin described Appellant as
Appellant consented to a search of his person. There was
nothing on his person. Appellant gave a statement to police
in which he explained that the police did not find anything
on his person because he saw police coming and ate a bag of
methamphetamine. Police found several cut straws and a
Coleman can in the truck in which Appellant was riding. The
truck belonged to co-defendant Minton. Investigator Martin
testified that the items by themselves were not
"anything" but that people often snorted
methamphetamine through cut straws.
Appellant gave a statement in which he admitted to smoking
methamphetamine and eating a bag of methamphetamine. He
denied manufacturing methamphetamine. Appellant admitted that
he spent the night at the Vogel's apartment and went to
the store with co-defendant Minton to look for lithium
batteries. Appellant stated that he would have smelled the
methamphetamine if it were cooking while he was in the
A search warrant was obtained for the Vogel apartment where
officers seized a large number of known precursors to the
manufacture of methamphetamine. As a result, Appellant, Mr.
and Mrs. Vogel, and Mr. Minton were indicted by the Warren
County Grand Jury for one count of initiating a process
intended to result in the manufacture of methamphetamine and
one count of promoting the manufacture of methamphetamine.
At trial, Mrs. Vogel testified that Appellant smoked
methamphetamine on aluminum foil at the apartment. Mrs. Vogel
personally observed Appellant with scales, filters, lye, cold
packs, and pills on the floor of the apartment. Mrs. Vogel
testified that Appellant placed a filter on the scales and
poured out the lye. She claimed that she took her medicine
and went to bed while the men cooked the methamphetamine.
Mr. Vogel testified that he pled guilty to the charges he
received in this case and got a total effective sentence of
forty years. He admitted that he cooked methamphetamine and
confirmed that Appellant was at his apartment on the night in
question. According to Mr. Vogel, the three men cooked and
consumed methamphetamine that night at the apartment.
Appellant participated by weighing "some stuff out"
and using the container of lye. Appellant also cut open the
cold packs to access the ammonium nitrate. He poured this
substance in a bag. Appellant also "had a jug fixed up
with a hose coming out of it and was going to gas off what he
had poured off of a shake jug" while Mr. Vogel dropped
aluminum foil balls into the muriatic acid to cause the
reaction. Mr. Vogel admitted that he sprayed air freshener
and turned on the exhaust fan in order to try to cover up the
Appellant's thirteen-year-old son, Dakota Bennett,
testified for the defense. Mr. Bennett testified that he
overhead a conversation between Mrs. Vogel and Appellant in
which she stated that Appellant had nothing to do with
cooking methamphetamine in this case.
Devin Carter, a close friend of Appellant, stopped by the
Vogel's apartment on the night of July 15, 2012. He got
"into it" with Mr. Vogel. At one point, Mr. Vogel
pulled out a knife and stabbed the television. Mr. Carter did
not see any evidence of methamphetamine cooking but admitted
that he was only at the apartment for about ten minutes.
At the conclusion of the proof, the jury found Appellant
guilty of initiating a process to manufacture methamphetamine
and attempt to promote the manufacture of methamphetamine.
The trial court sentenced Appellant as a Range II, multiple
offender to nineteen years for the conviction for initiating
a process to manufacture methamphetamine and four years for
the conviction for attempt to promote the manufacture of
methamphetamine. The trial court ordered the sentences to be
State v. Dodd, No. M2011-02259-CCA-R3CD, 2013 WL
2296168, at *1-2 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 23, 2013).
apparent from the above facts, Mr. Minton did not testify at
Petitioner’s trial. See Docket No. 57, p. 5.
Petitioner’s trial counsel subpoenaed Mr. Minton to
trial (Id. at 4 (citing Docket No. 37-16, p. 19-20;
Docket No. 37-16, p. 16)); however, through information
obtained from Mr. Minton prior to trial, Petitioner’s
counsel decided not to call Mr. Minton as a witness.
Id. at 5. Unknown to Petitioner’s trial
counsel, the State possessed a statement written by Mr.
Minton about a month after Minton was arrested. Id.
(citing Docket No. 57-1, pp 1-2). Thus, the document at issue