Thorne v. Lester
Filing
22
ORDER: As explained in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the court finds that Mr. Thorne is not entitled to relief on the basis of the grounds articulated in his petition. Accordingly, his petition (ECF No. 1 ) is hereby DENIED, and this matter is DISMISSED. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 9/8/2014. (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
GLENARD C. THORNE,
Petitioner,
v.
JAMES M. HOLLWAY, Warden,1
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 3:14-cv-0695
Judge Trauger
ORDER
Glenard Cortez Thorne, a prisoner in state custody, has filed a pro se petition under 28 U.S.C. §
2254 for the writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1), challenging a conviction and sentence issued by the
Davidson County Criminal Court in 2008. The respondent has filed an answer in opposition to the petition
(ECF No. 14), along with a complete copy of the underlying state-court record.2 The petition is ripe for
review, and this court has jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).
As explained in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the court finds that Mr. Thorne is not
entitled to relief on the basis of the grounds articulated in his petition. Accordingly, his petition (ECF No.
1) is hereby DENIED, and this matter is DISMISSED.
As also discussed in the court’s Memorandum, the court finds that only two of the issues raised in
the § 2254 motion are “adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537
U.S. 322, 327 (2003). The court GRANTS a certificate of appealability (COA) as to Thorne’s claims that
(1) his convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping violated due process (Claim
1(a), as enumerated ag page 5 of the accompanying Memorandum Opinion); and
(2) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that the jury should have been
required to decide whether the proof established that the removal or confinement of the
victims was independently significant from the accompanying felonies to justify separate
kidnapping convictions, and that the ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel
1
The court takes judicial notice that James M. Holloway was recently appointed warden of the
West
Tennessee
State
Penitentiary
where
the
petitioner
is
in
custody.
See
http://www.tn.gov/correction/institutions/wardenbio.html. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), Mr. Holloway is
automatically substituted as the named respondent. See also Rule 2(a), Rules Gov’g § 2254 Cases.
2
The respondent sought and was granted permission to manually file 9 compact disks apparently
comprising trial exhibits. These compact disks were never filed, to the court’s knowledge, but the court
does not find them to be necessary to resolution of this case.
2
establishes cause under Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. ----, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012), to
overcome the default of this claim (Claim 5(q) as enumerated at page 6 of the
Memorandum Opinion).
The remaining claims, which are for the most part procedurally defaulted or are not cognizable in
federal habeas corpus, do not merit further review. The court therefore DENIES a COA as to all other
claims articulated in Mr. Thorne’s petition and supporting statement. The petitioner may, however, seek a
COA directly from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1).
It is so ORDERED.
This is a final judgment for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.
Aleta A. Trauger
United States District Judge
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?