Sanborn v. Parker
Decision Date | 17 February 2011 |
Docket Number | Nos. 07-5309,Nos. 07-5310,s. 07-5309,s. 07-5310 |
Citation | 629 F.3d 554 |
Parties | Parramore L. SANBORN, Petitioner-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. Phil PARKER, Warden, Kentucky State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellant/Cross-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
ARGUED: William Robert Long, Jr., Office of the Kentucky Attorney General, Frankfort, Kentucky, for Appellant. Jennifer M. Kinsley, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Ian G. Sonego, David A. Smith, Office of the Kentucky Attorney General, Frankfort, Kentucky, for Appellant. Jennifer M. Kinsley, Cincinnati, Ohio, Armand I. Judah, Judah & McLeod, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellee.
Before: MERRITT, BOGGS, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
Warden Phil Parker ("Parker") of the Kentucky State Penitentiary appeals the judgment of the district court granting in part the application for a writ of habeas corpus of Parramore Sanborn ("Sanborn"). That judgment was entered on the grounds that the admission of certain testimony at the penalty phase of Sanborn's capital-murder trial constituted unconstitutional governmental interference with the right to counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment. Sanborn himself cross-appeals from the district court's denial with prejudice of several alternative grounds for habeas relief. For the reasons discussed below, we reverse the judgment of the district court insofar as it granted habeas relief, and affirm it in all other respects.
Like many cases in which a habeas petitioner has been convicted of a capital offense, this one comes to us with a lengthy and intricate factual and procedural history.
Sanborn v. Parker, No. 99-678-C, 2007 WL 495202, at * 1-2 (W.D.Ky. Feb.14, 2007) (" Sanborn IV").
Sanborn was tried on charges of murder, first-degree kidnaping, first-degree rape, and first-degree sodomy in the Henry County Circuit Court from January to March 1984. Sanborn v. Commonwealth, 892 S.W.2d 542, 545 (Ky.1995) as modified on denial of reh'g (" Sanborn II "). He was convicted on all counts, and sentenced to death for the murder and to life imprisonment for each of the other three felonies. Ibid. On appeal, that conviction was reversed by the Kentucky Supreme Court for prosecutorial misconduct and for errors committed regarding the admissibility of evidence. Id. at 545-46 (citing Sanborn v. Commonwealth, 754 S.W.2d 534 (Ky.1988) (" Sanborn I ")). The matter was remanded for a new trial; on remand, the original trial judge recused himself and granted a change of venue to Jefferson County, Kentucky, where the case was presided over by Special Judge William L. Shadoan. Sanborn II, 892 S.W.2d at 546.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
King v. Berghuis
...unreasonably refused to extend a legal principle from Supreme Court precedent to a new context. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Sanborn v. Parker, 629 F.3d 554, 564 (6th Cir.2010). King argues that the state court's “complete failure to consider [ ] King's understanding of the consequences of his plea......
-
Tempest v. State, 2015–257–M.P.
...when, in actuality, he moved in around a year later.”11 Footnote 32 of the hearing justice's decision reads: “See Sanborn v. Parker, 629 F.3d 554, 572 (6th Cir.2010) (‘Having heard of [witness'] constantly shifting stories, * * * a rational jury would surely have [ ] seriously doubted [his]......
-
United States v. McReynolds
...Cir. 2014) ("Central Ohio did not raise this issue in its briefs, and accordingly it has forfeited the argument."); Sanborn v. Parker , 629 F.3d 554, 579 (6th Cir. 2010) (declining to consider issue not presented in appellant's opening brief); see also Hartmann v. Prudential Ins. Co. , 9 F.......
-
State v. Lenarz
...as well as a showing of intrusion” to establish sixth amendment violation), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 629 F.3d 554 (6th Cir.2010); United States v. Shreck, Docket No. 03–CR0043–CVE, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33158, *17–*18 (N.D.Okla. May 23, 2006) (“The cases in which co......
-
Trials
...had only business relationship and not attorney-client relationship during government investigation of defendant); Sanborn v. Parker, 629 F.3d 554, 573 (6th Cir. 2010) (no violation when psychiatrist testified about defendant’s legal strategy because testimony did not provide government wi......