Cable v. Tenn. Department of Correction
Filing
12
MEMORANDUM OPINION: For the reasons discussed above, Respondents motion to dismiss [Doc. 6] will be GRANTED and Petitioners habeas action will be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. AN APPROPRIATE ORDER WILL ENTER. See order for details. Signed by District Judge J Ronnie Greer on 3/1/2016. (c/m to pro se petitioner) (RLC, ) Modified on 3/1/2016 reflect copy mailed (RLC, ).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT GREENEVILLE
JOHN FRANKLIN CABLE,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Petitioner,
v.
DAVID SEXTON, Warden,
Respondent.
No.
2:14-CV-332-JRG-MCLC
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On November 7, 2014, Petitioner filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus
challenging his confinement pursuant to state court judgments entered by the Washington
County Criminal Court [Doc. 1].
Specifically, Petitioner complains that the Tennessee
Department of Correction has incorrectly interpreted the structure of his sentences because he is
“suppose[d] to be serving [a] 6 year sentence . . . out of Sullivan [County, but is
instead] . . . serving a 6 year sentence out of Washington County” [Id. at 13–14]. Before the
Court is Respondent’s motion to dismiss [Doc. 6].
I.
BACKGROUND
On November 8, 2013, a state trial court sentenced Petitioner to serve six years’
incarceration in the Department of Correction for evading arrest with risk of death in Washington
County, Tennessee. The sentence was to run concurrent with separate sentences received in
Johnson County, Tennessee and Sullivan County, Tennessee [See Doc. 7-1 (Washington County
Judgment Form)]. Petitioner neither withdrew his guilty plea nor appealed the conviction.
On October 16, 2014, Petitioner filed a timely pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus
with this Court claiming that the Tennessee Department of Correction has him serving the
“wrong” 6-year sentence [Doc. 1]. Respondent requests that the Court dismiss Petitioner’s
request for habeas relief based on lack of cognizability [Docs. 6, 6-1].
II.
MOTION TO DISMISS
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), the mechanism by
which a defendant convicted of violating state law, sentenced in state court, and incarcerated in a
state prison can seek federal review of his detention, provides that:
(a) A District Court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus on
behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the
ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of
the United States.
(b)(1) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody
pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears
that:
(A) the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the
State; or
(B)(i) there is an absence of available State corrective process; or
(ii) circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect the
rights of the applicant.
28 U.S.C. § 2254. These limits on the availability of habeas relief are jurisdictional in nature.
Petitioner’s proposed ground for habeas relief—imposition of two consecutive six-year
sentences instead a single concurrent six-year term of incarceration consistent with the terms of
his state-based plea agreement [Doc. 1 p.5]—does not assert the violation of a constitutional
right, law of the United States, or treaty of the United States. Further, he does not claim that his
sentence has expired or that there is an absence of available state corrective process to resolve his
2
complaint.1
Petitioner instead challenges the structure of his sentences and the Tennessee
Department of Correction’s interpretation of that structure, neither of which provide a cognizable
issue for resolution by way of federal habeas corpus.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, Respondent’s motion to dismiss [Doc. 6] will be
GRANTED and Petitioner’s habeas action will be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
AN APPROPRIATE ORDER WILL ENTER.
s/J. RONNIE GREER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1
A more appropriate vehicle for review and resolution of Petitioner’s claim may be an
inmate inquiry addressed to Petitioner’s counselor, institutional records office, and Sentence
Information Services [See Doc. 7-2 (Inmate Grievance Procedures, Index # 501.01, p. 4, Section
V.G.6)].
3
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?