D'Antonio v. Carpenter et al

Filing 44

ORDER: For the reasons explained in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the Court finds that D'Antonio is not entitled to relief on the basis of the grounds articulated in his petition. Accordingly, the petition is hereby DENIED and this mat ter is DISMISSED. In addition, as also explained in the Memorandum Opinion, the Court finds that an appeal by the petitioner on any of the issues raised in this petition would not merit further attention. The Court therefore DENIES a COA. The peti tioner may, however, seek a COA directly from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. It is so ORDERED. The Clerk is directed to enter final judgment in accordance with Rule 58 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 7/3/2014. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
RICHARD FRANK D’ANTONIO,
Petitioner,
v.
WAYNE CARPENTER,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:13-cv-0355
Judge Sharp

ORDER
Petitioner Richard Frank D’Antonio, a prisoner in state custody, has filed a petition and amended
petition for the writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF Nos. 1 and 20), challenging his 2003
conviction in the Davidson County Criminal Court. The respondent filed an answer to the petition (ECF
No. 23), along with a complete copy of the underlying state-court record. After being granted leave to do
so, the petitioner filed a reply brief (ECF No. 36). Thereafter, the Court directed both parties to
supplement their pleadings in light of the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Sutton v. Carpenter, 745 F.3d 787 (6th
Cir. March 19, 2014), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1889 (April 21, 2014). (See ECF Nos. 40, 42.) The petition
is ripe for review, and this Court has jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).
For the reasons explained in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the Court finds that
D’Antonio is not entitled to relief on the basis of the grounds articulated in his petition. Accordingly, the
petition is hereby DENIED and this matter is DISMISSED.
In addition, as also explained in the Memorandum Opinion, the Court finds that an appeal by the
petitioner on any of the issues raised in this petition would not merit further attention. The Court therefore
DENIES a COA. The petitioner may, however, seek a COA directly from the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to enter final judgment in accordance with Rule 58 of the Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure.

Kevin H. Sharp
United States District Judge