Jones v. Perry

• Decision Date: 27 January 2023
• Docket Number: 3:16-cv-02631
• Parties: CEDRIC JONES, #519021, Petitioner, v. GRADY PERRY, Warden, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee

1

CEDRIC JONES, #519021, Petitioner, v. GRADY PERRY, Warden, Respondent.

No. 3:16-cv-02631

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division

January 27, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION

WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR. CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Petitioner Cedric Jones, an inmate of the Whiteville Correctional Facility, Tennessee, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2013 conviction and sentence for three counts of aggravated rape, one count of aggravated sexual battery, and one count of aggravated kidnapping for which he currently is serving a term of imprisonment of thirty-seven years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. (Doc. No. 161).^[1]

Presently pending before the Court is the Warden's Answer to the habeas petition in which he asks the Court to dismiss the petition. (Doc. No. 204). Petitioner filed a Response to the Answer. (Doc. No. 207).

The petition is ripe for review, and this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Having fully considered the record, the Court finds that an evidentiary hearing is not needed, and Petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Christian v. Hoffner, No. 17-2105, 2018 WL 4489140, at *2 (6th Cir. May 8, 2018) (quoting Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 474 (2007)) (“A district court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing if the record ‘precludes habeas relief.'”). The petition therefore will be denied and this action will be dismissed.

I. Procedural History

On March 6, 2013, a Davidson County Tennessee jury convicted Petitioner of three counts of aggravated rape, one count of aggravated sexual battery, and one count of aggravated kidnapping of his fourteen-year-old daughter. He was sentenced to a total effective sentence of thirty-seven years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. State v. Jones, No. M2015-00720-CCA-R3-CD, 2016 WL 3621513 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 29, 2016), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Sept. 22, 2016).

On direct appeal, the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals (TCCA) affirmed Petitioner's conviction and sentence on June 29, 2016. Id. The Tennessee Supreme Court denied Petitioner's application for discretionary review on September 22, 2016. Id.

On October 3, 2016, Petitioner filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this Court. (Doc. No. 1). On March 8, 2017, Petitioner sought to voluntarily dismiss this case, and the Court dismissed the case without prejudice. (Doc. No. 27). On March 20, 2017, Petitioner sought to reopen this case. (Doc. No. 31). On April 4, 2017, the Court ordered Respondent to respond to Petitioner's request and, if appropriate, to his petition. (Doc. No. 39). On May 8, 2017, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to exhaust state remedies. (Doc. No. 52). On February 18, 2018, the Court granted Petitioner's Motion to Reopen his case, but held his petition in abeyance pending Petitioner's exhaustion of his state court remedies. (Doc. No. 80).

On September 12, 2017, Petitioner filed a timely pro se petition for state post-conviction relief. (Doc. No. 75 at PageID# 4). The post-conviction court denied relief. (Doc. No. 179-1 at PageID# 3619-66). Petitioner did not appeal the denial.^[2]

On September 23, 2019, the Court granted Petitioner's Motion to Reopen this case based on the conclusion of his state-court proceedings. (Doc. No. 156). The Court further granted Petitioner's Motion to Amend, concluding that the Amended Petition (Doc. No. 148) should be allowed as a supplement to the original petition. (Doc. No. 156).

On December 19, 2019, Respondent filed an Answer (Doc. No. 180) addressing the four claims in the original petition (Doc. No. 1) as well as the numerous claims raised in Petitioner's Amended Petition. (Doc No. 148). On February 10, 2020, following Petitioner's Objection to Respondent's Answer, the Court designated Petitioner's Supplemental/Amended Petition (Doc. No. 161) as the governing petition in this case and ordered Respondent to respond to it. (Doc. No. 193). Respondent subsequently filed an Answer to Petitioner's Supplemental/Amended Petition. (Doc. No. 204). Petitioner filed a Response to that Answer. (Doc. No. 207).

In his Supplemental/Amended Petition, Petitioner asserts thirteen claims, some of which have sub-claims, as noted below:^[3]

(1) Whether the trial court committed significant judicial errors against Petitioner

Sub-Claims: 1) Petitioner was denied his right to an impartial judge; 2) the trial court improperly amended Petitioner's indictment; 3) Petitioner was denied the right to self-representation; 4) Petitioner's right to a fair trial was violated; 5) the state committed discovery violations; and 6) the trial court gave erroneous jury instructions (Doc. No. 161 at PageID# 2176-81); (2) Whether Petitioner received ineffective assistance of direct appeal counsel (Id. at PagelD# 2182);

(3) Whether the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals violated Petitioner's 5th and 14th Amendment rights (Id. at PageID# 2183);

(4) Whether the Supreme Court of Tennessee violated Petitioner's First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights (Id. at Page ID# 2184);

(5) Whether the state committed prosecutorial misconduct (Id. at Page ID# 2185-88);

(6) Whether Petitioner was denied effective assistance of trial counsel Sub-Claims: 1) failing to impeach a witness; 2) failing to file a written motion for review in the trial court when he failed to appear; 3) failing to challenge Petitioner's bond; 4) failing to object to the trial judge coercing Petitioner's guilty plea; 5) failing to challenge two of the jurors (Id. at PageID# 2189-90); and 6) failing to obtain or retain Petitioner's preliminary hearing transcript^[4]

(7) Whether the trial court committed structural errors against Petitioner Sub-Claims: 1) trial errors occurred during the presentation of the case to the jury; 2) deprivation of counsel and a biased judge; 3) denial of effective assistance of counsel; 4) trial counsel has a conflict of interest; 5) denial of the right to self-representation; 6) denial of the right to an impartial judge;

7) denial of the full protection of the reasonable doubt standard at trial; 8) Petitioner's wife submitted ‘Exhibit W' as a fraud; 9) the trial judge ignored Petitioner's Exhibit 3; 10) Exhibit U was filed when Petitioner wanted additional time because he got sick (Id. at PageID# 2191-94).

(8) Whether the trial court and state committed crimes against Petitioner Sub-Claims: 1) official misconduct; 2) official oppression; and 3) criminal conspiracy (Id. at Page ID# 2195-98);

(9) Whether Petitioner's Double Jeopardy rights were violated (Id. at PageID# 2199-2200);

(10) Whether Petitioner's speedy trial rights were violated (Id. at Page ID# 2201-07);

(11) Whether Petitioner's due process rights were violated by the trial court's alleged bias against him (Id. at PageID# 2208); (12) Whether Petitioner's Fourth Amendment rights were violated by an alleged illegal search and seizure (Id. at PagelD# 2209); and

(13) Whether Petitioner's indictment is “void.” (Id. at PageID# 2210).

II. Summary of the Evidence

Petitioner's state criminal case arose from Petitioner's interactions with his fourteen-year-old daughter beginning on the afternoon of March 1, 2010. State v. Jones, No. M2015-00720-CCA-R3-CD, 2016 WL 3621513, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 29, 2016). The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals summarized the proof adduced at Petitioner's jury trial as follows:

After the victim came home from school on March 1, 2010, Defendant told her that he was going to take her to get her nails done. After they left the house, Defendant drove the victim to a storage unit that he used as a recording studio. The victim asked what they were doing there, and Defendant did not respond. The victim sat on a futon inside the storage unit while Defendant played music on his computer. The victim “noticed the songs he was playing were really depressing.” The victim described Defendant as “acting really depressed” and “upset.” Defendant told the victim that he wanted to kill himself. The victim believed him and started crying. After talking for about an hour, Defendant went to the car and retrieved a small case. Defendant opened the case and showed the victim his gun. Defendant wanted the victim to know the gun was real, so he placed it on her thigh along with the bullets. Defendant told the victim that he was going to use the gun on himself and not her.

The victim tried to talk Defendant out of killing himself promising not to tell anyone about his suicide threat so that he would not be sent to a mental institution. After several hours of crying and pleading, the victim developed a migraine headache. Defendant went to get the victim some medicine and told her not to leave or he would shoot himself. When Defendant returned, he instructed the victim to take the medicine with a wine cooler he brought to her. The victim told Defendant that she did not want to drink. Defendant placed the gun to his head and threatened to “shoot his brains out” if she did not drink the wine cooler. Defendant made the victim drink four or six bottles of wine coolers. After threatening to shoot himself if she left, Defendant went out to the car and retrieved a larger bottle of alcohol. When the victim refused to drink it, Defendant stated “if you hate me so much, then why don't you just pull the trigger.” Defendant then placed the gun in his mouth and put the victim's hand on the trigger. The victim knew the gun was loaded, so she pulled her hand away and agreed to drink the larger bottle. The victim started “feeling sick and dizzy.”

The victim asked Defendant to take her home so they could watch a movie, and Defendant agreed. However, when they got to the house, De

...