Sims v. Colson
Filing
53
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PETITIONERS MOTION 49 FOR ORDER DIRECTING THE STATE TO FILE ADDITIONAL PORTIONS OF THE STATE COURT RECORD. Signed by Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 8/28/2015. (Anderson, S.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
VINCENT SIMS,
Petitioner,
vs.
WAYNE CARPENTER, Warden, Riverbend
Maximum Security Institution,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 11-2946-STA-cgc
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING THE STATE
TO FILE ADDITIONAL PORTIONS OF THE STATE COURT RECORD
On July 22, 2015, Petitioner Vincent Sims, through counsel and pursuant to Rules 5(c) and
(d) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (“Habeas
Rules”), filed a motion for an order directing the State to file additional portions of the state court
record and a supporting memorandum. (See Electronic Case Filing (“ECF”) Nos. 49 & 50.)
Respondent Wayne Carpenter filed a reply in opposition to the motion on August 7, 2015. (ECF
No. 51.)
On May 28, 2015, the Court directed Respondent to file:
the complete state court record relevant to this matter, including the complete trial
court record, the complete record on direct appeal, and the complete trial and
appellate court record in connection with any state petition for collateral relief
including, but not limited to, transcripts for all proceedings and rulings on any state
petition.
(ECF No. 42 at 2.) The notice of filing was required to include “a comprehensive index
indicating the precise location of each distinct part of the record.” (Id.) On July 13, 2015,
Respondent filed a Notice of Filing of the state court record in three parts with multiple
attachments. (See ECF Nos. 46-48.)
Petitioner asserts that the State omitted filing the following portions of the State court
record:
A. the record for the Tennessee Supreme Court Tenn. R. App. P. 11 proceeding in the original
post-conviction proceeding which includes (1) Mr. Sims’s Application For Permission To
Appeal; (2) the State’s Answer Letter; and (3) the Tennessee Supreme Court’s Order
denying Mr. Sims’s application;
B. the record for the Tennessee Supreme Court Tenn. R. App. P. 11 proceeding in a
subsequent error coram nobis proceeding which includes (1) Mr. Sims’s Application For
Permission To Appeal; (2) the State’s Answer Letter; and (3) the Tennessee Supreme
Court’s Order denying Mr. Sims’s application;
C. the Tennessee Supreme Court’s order denying Mr. Sims’s Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application
in the original motion to reopen proceeding;
D. the record for the subsequent motion to reopen proceeding, Sims v. State, No. P25898, that
is currently pending in the Shelby County Criminal Court; and
E. the record for the prosecution of Mr. Sims’s co-defendant, Brian Mitchell, which includes
(1) documents filed in the trial court (indictments, motions, petitions, plea papers, court
orders, judgments, etc.); (2) transcripts of any status conferences discussing the State’s
prosecution of Mitchell; (3) transcripts of any guilty plea hearing; (4) transcripts of any
sentencing hearing; and (5) documents filed in, and transcripts of, any parole hearings.
(ECF No. 49 at 1-2.)1
Respondent argues that, where Petitioner requests the trial records of Brian Mitchell, he is
essentially requesting discovery that is not appropriate under Habeas Rule 5. (ECF No. 51 at
1-2.) Respondent argues that Petitioner has not demonstrated good cause under Habeas Rule 6
1
Petitioner consistently refers to “the State” being required to file the record in this case.
The Court presumes that Petitioner is referring to Respondent, the state official who holds
Petitioner in custody and the proper defendant in this habeas proceeding. See Habeas Rule 2(a).
2
and only makes conclusory assertions that Mitchell’s records are relevant to Petitioner’s habeas
claims. (Id. at 3.) Respondent submits that he is still reviewing Petitioner’s pending state court
actions in the processing of developing an answer, and any additional records relied upon in the
answer will be filed with the Clerk of Court. (Id.)
On August 14, 2015, Respondent filed his answer to the Second Amended Petition. (ECF
No. 52.) Respondent states that he has filed transcripts of Petitioner’s trial proceedings and the
evidentiary hearing from the state post-conviction proceedings. (Id. at 2.) Respondent asserts
that “the state court proceedings of record pertinent to this petitioner have been transcribed and
filed, or will be filed, by the respondent with the Clerk of this Court.” (Id.) Respondent states
that the parties’ briefs and the opinions of the Tennessee appellate courts have been filed as
attachments to Respondent’s Notice of Filing. (Id. at 3.) Respondent does not otherwise address
the issues raised in Petitioner’s motion.
Habeas Rule 5 addresses a respondent’s answer to a petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254. Habeas Rule 5(c) requires that Respondent provide transcripts with his answer. Habeas
Rule 5(d) requires that Respondent file the following documents with his answer:
(1) any brief that the petitioner submitted in an appellate court contesting the
conviction of sentence, or contesting an adverse judgment or order in a
post-conviction proceeding;
(2) any brief that the prosecution submitted in an appellate court relating to the
conviction or the sentence; and
(3) the opinions and dispositive orders of the appellate court relating to the
conviction or the sentence.
On May 28, 2015, the Court ordered Respondent to file a complete state court record including
“the complete trial and appellate court record in connection with any state petition for collateral
3
relief.” (ECF No. 42 at 2.)
Respondent does not address Petitioner’s assertions that the documents in Requests A
through C have not been filed in his reply or his answer to the Second Amended Petition.
Requests A through C fall within the category of information Respondent has been ordered to
produce pursuant to this Court’s order and Habeas Rule 5(d). Requests A through C are
GRANTED.
Request D addresses the record for the motion to reopen post-conviction proceedings that
is currently pending in state court. (ECF No. 50 at 3.) In that motion, Petitioner argues that Hall
v. Florida, 134 S. Ct. 1986 (2014), establishes a new constitutional right that deserves
retrospective application. (Id.) He asserts that Hall entitles him to a hearing on his intellectual
disability claim. (Id. at 3 n.2.)
Petitioner has asserted intellectual disability in Claims 21 and 22 of his Second Amended
Petition that are related to the pending motion to reopen post-conviction proceedings. (ECF No.
45 at 87-90.) Petitioner’s Atkins claims, including an analysis under Hall, have been exhausted in
state court. See Sims v. Tennessee, No. W2014-00166-CCA-R3-PD, 2014 WL 7334202, at *3-6
(Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 23, 2014), perm. app. denied (Tenn. May 18, 2015). The record of
Petitioner’s state court proceedings on this motion, although related, is not necessary to this
Court’s determination of Petitioner’s claim. Respondent would be required to continually file
documents in federal court as the state court proceedings progress. The Court shall not, at this
time, require Respondent to file the record in the pending state court motion to reopen
post-conviction proceedings.2 Request D is DENIED.
2
Petitioner should have access to these filings through his counsel. Further, Petitioner
4
In Request E, Petitioner seeks the state court record related to his co-defendant Brian
Mitchell. (ECF No. 50 at 4.) Petitioner argues that he and Brian Mitchell were part of the same
criminal proceeding, and Petitioner is therefore entitled to the State court record regarding the
state’s prosecution of Mitchell and disposition of the charges. (Id.) In the habeas petition,
Petitioner asserts that Mitchell had an agreement with the prosecution in exchange for his trial
testimony and a false testimony claim involving Mitchell. (Id. at 5; see ECF No. 45 at 50-52,
67-73.) Petitioner contends that, in the post-conviction proceedings, the prosecutor testified that
he would see if the victim’s family approved of Mitchell’s testimony and would recommend a
disposition of the state charges if Mitchell testified against Petitioner. (ECF No. 50 at 5; see ECF
No. 47-11 at PageID 3761-3762 (“after discussing those issues with the family members that we
would make a recommendation to Mr. Anderson and Mr. Mitchell about a possible disposition of
the charges against him”).) The state court record as to Mitchell is related to Petitioner’s case, but
its production is not required by Habeas Rule 5 or the Court’s May 28, 2015 order. Mitchell’s
purported false testimony is available to Petitioner as part of the trial transcript, and the
prosecutor’s purported admission that a promise was made in exchange for Mitchell’s trial
testimony is available to Petitioner as part of the state court record. Request E is DENIED.
Petitioner’s motion is GRANTED as to the information described in Requests A through
C. Respondent shall file this information, as directed by the Court in its May 28, 2015 order, no
later than September 14, 2015.
Petitioner’s motion is DENIED for the information sought in Requests D and E.
may obtain relevant information from the state court motion to reopen post-conviction
proceedings under Habeas Rule 6 based on a showing of good cause.
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ S. Thomas Anderson
S.THOMAS ANDERSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: August 28, 2015
6
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?