Ronald Cauthern v. Ricky Bell


OPINION and JUDGMENT filed: The judgment of the district court with respect to Petitioner's claims under Eddings and Brady and the state's use of the heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravator at sentencing is AFFIRMED. The petition for a conditional writ of habeas corpus based on Petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct is GRANTED, and the state is ORDERED to commence resentencing proceedings for Petitioner within 180 days of the filing date of this judgment or vacate Petitioner's sentence of death. Decision for publication. R. Guy Cole, Jr., Eric L. Clay (AUTHORING), and John M. Rogers (DISSENTING FROM PARTS III.B and VI.B.1. OF THE MAJORITY'S OPINION), Circuit Judges.

Download PDF
Case: 10-5759 Document: 006111882343 Filed: 11/14/2013 Page: 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 100 EAST FIFTH STREET, ROOM 540 POTTER STEWART U.S. COURTHOUSE CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202-3988 Deborah S. Hunt Clerk Tel. (513) 564-7000 Filed: November 14, 2013 Mr. Michael J. Benza Law Office of Michael J. Benza 17850 Geauga Lake Road Chagrin Falls, OH 44023 Mr. Paul Joseph Bruno 218 Third Avenue, N., Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37201 Mr. Laurence E. Komp P.O. Box 1785 Manchester, MO 63011-0000 Mr. Andrew H. Smith Office of the Tennessee Attorney General P.O. Box 20207 Nashville, TN 37202 Re: Case No. 10-5759, Ronald Cauthern v. Roland Colson Originating Case No. : 3:04-cv-1100 Dear Counsel, The court today announced its decision in the above-styled case. Enclosed is a copy of the court's opinion together with the judgment which has been entered in conformity with Rule 36, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Yours very truly, Deborah S. Hunt, Clerk Case: 10-5759 Document: 006111882343 Filed: 11/14/2013 Cathryn Lovely Deputy Clerk cc: Mr. Keith Throckmorton Enclosures Mandate to issue. Page: 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?