Nichols v. Bell
| Decision Date | 25 July 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 1:02 CV 330.,1:02 CV 330. |
| Citation | 440 F.Supp.2d 730 |
| Parties | Harold Wayne NICHOLS, Petitioner, v. Ricky BELL, Warden, Riverbend Maximum Security Institution, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee |
Stephen M. Kissinger, Dana C. Hansen Chavis, Knoxville, TN, for Petitioner.
Alice B. Lustre, Gill R. Geldreich, Jennifer L. Smith, Mark A. Fulks, Paul G. Summers, Stephen W. Austin, Nashville, TN, Leonard Green, Cincinnati, OH, for Respondent.
Harold Wayne Nichols ("Nichols" or "petitioner"), a death-sentenced inmate at the Riverbend Maximum Security Institution in Nashville, Tennessee, brings this petition for writ of habeas corpus against the Warden, Ricky Bell ("State" or "respondent"), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 [Court File No. 82]. Nichols is petitioning this Court for a writ of habeas corpus discharging him from his "unconstitutional and invalid conviction for first-degree murder" and his resulting death sentence [Court File No. 82, at 1]. Before the. Court is respondent's motion and memorandum to dismiss the amended petition [Court File Nos. 119, 120], petitioner's response to the motion to dismiss the amended petition [Court File Nos. 140, 211, Attachment # 1], and respondent's reply to petitioner's response to the motion to dismiss [Court File No. 155]. After carefully considering arguments of counsel and the applicable law, the Court will GRANT the respondent's motion to dismiss [Court File No. 119].
On May 9, 1990, Nichols pleaded guilty to first-degree felony murder, aggravated rape, and first-degree burglary1 in the Criminal Court of Hamilton County before a jury impaneled from Sumner County, Tennessee. The trial proceeded to the penalty phase with the State relying on two aggravating circumstances: (1) the murder's occurrence during the commission of a felony, and (2) Nichols' previous convictions of violent felonies. Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(2) & (7). At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, after deliberating approximately two hours, the jury returned a verdict of death based on the two statutory aggravating circumstances.
On direct appeal, the Tennessee Supreme Court determined the use of the felony-murder for which Nichols had been convicted as an aggravating circumstance was error; however, they determined the error was harmless and affirmed the convictions and sentences. The following recitation of the facts is from the direct appeal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
Because of the substantial publicity...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nichols v. Heidle
...court dismissed the petition without a hearing, but granted Nichols a certificate of appealability on seven issues. Nichols v. Bell, 440 F.Supp.2d 730 (E.D.Tenn.2006). On November 28, 2006, Nichols appealed here and this court subsequently granted Nichols a COA on one additional issue.27 We......
-
Sutton v. Bell
...the state court could not have applied the law to facts that were not before it. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2); Nichols v. Bell, 440 F.Supp.2d 730, 799 n. 26 (E.D.Tenn.2006).19 Sutton claims he was vulnerable to Dellinger's influence because years of consumption of alcohol, beginning in pre-adoles......
-
Caudill v. Conover, Civil No. 5: 10-84-DCR
...still responsible for determining whether the imposition of the death penalty is suitable in Caudill's case. Cf. Nichols v. Bell, 440 F. Supp. 2d 730, 845 (E.D. Tenn. 2006) ("Nothing in Caldwell prohibits the State from telling the jury the law permits the State to ask for the death penalty......
-
Davis v. Bobby
...or her claim to the state courts, "an elaboration of the facts or legal theories will not result in a new claim." Nichols v. Bell, 440 F. Supp. 2d 730, 755 (E.D. Tenn. 2006) (citing Jones v. Washington, 15 F.3d 671, 674-75 (7th Cir. 1994)). If, on the other hand, additional facts or argumen......