Vaughn v. Westbrooks

Filing 65

ORDER: As explained in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the court finds that the petitioner 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 12/9/2015. (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

WILLIAM L. VAUGHN, #348411,
Petitioner,
v.
STEVENSON NIXON, Warden,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:15-cv-0034
Judge Trauger

ORDER
Petitioner William L. Vaughn, a state prisoner incarcerated at the Lois M. DeBerry Special Needs
Facility in Nashville, Tennessee 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 2001. The petition is ripe for review, and this court has jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).
The court previously denied the petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary hearing (ECF No. 3) as
premature. (See Order, ECF No. 52.) The court has reconsidered that determination, as set forth in the
accompanying Memorandum Opinion, and finds that an evidentiary hearing is not warranted.
Further, as also explained in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the court finds that the
petitioner 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 memorandum, the court finds that several 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 the petitioner’s claims (1)
that he was effectively denied the right to testify at his first post-conviction hearing, (2) that his plea was
premised on the understanding that he would undergo a psycho-sexual evaluation prior to sentencing, (3)
that trial counsel was ineffective for arguing that sentencing consideration should begin at the middle of
the range rather than at the low end, (4) that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately inform
the petitioner that he would be subject to the state’s sex-offender registry requirements for life, and (5)

2

that the plea was not knowing and voluntary as a result of the trial court’s failure to inform the petitioner
that he would be subject to lifetime community supervision following the expiration of his sentence.
The remaining claims do not merit further review. The court therefore DENIES a COA as to all
other claims articulated in the habeas petition. The petitioner may, however, request a COA as to other
claims 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