Reynolds v. Hutchison

• Decision Date: 28 September 2018
• Docket Number: Case No. 3:14-cv-01249
• Parties: LARRY SCOTT REYNOLDS, Petitioner, v. KENNETH HUTCHISON, Warden, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee

LARRY SCOTT REYNOLDS, Petitioner, v. KENNETH HUTCHISON,¹ Warden, Respondent.

Case No. 3:14-cv-01249

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

September 28, 2018

Judge Bernard A. Friedman

Magistrate Judge Newbern

To the Honorable Bernard A. Friedman, Visiting Judge

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On July 3, 2008, a jury convicted Petitioner Larry Scott Reynolds of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced him to life with the possibility of parole. (Doc. No. 13-6, PageID# 697.) Reynolds filed this habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on May 27, 2014. (Doc. No. 1.) Respondent has answered the petition (Doc. No. 12) and filed the state court record (Doc. Nos. 13, 14). Respondent does not dispute that Reynolds's petition is timely and that this is his first habeas petition related to this conviction. (Doc. No. 12, PageID# 38-39.)

Reynolds argues "that a full hearing on [his] ineffective assistance of counsel claims" is warranted. (Doc. No. 1, PageID# 17.) This Court need not hold an evidentiary hearing where "the record refutes the applicant's factual allegations or otherwise precludes habeas relief." Schriro v.Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 474 (2007). The Court must consider Reynolds's claims in light of the "deferential standards prescribed by [the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA)]," under which a state court's factual findings are presumed correct subject to rebuttal by clear and convincing evidence. Id.; 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). Having carefully considered the amended petition and respondent's answer, as well as the record of proceedings in the state courts, the Court finds that an evidentiary hearing is not required in this matter. See Smith v. United States, 348 F.3d 545, 550 (6th Cir. 2003). For the reasons offered below, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the petition be DENIED.

I. Procedural History

Reynolds was prosecuted for the murder of Melissa Atkins, who was Reynolds's former romantic partner and the mother of his child. State v. Reynolds, No. M2009-00185-CCA-R3-CD, 2010 WL 5343305, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 18, 2010) (Reynolds I); (Doc. No. 13-31, PageID# 3650-51). On March 5, 2008, Reynolds was indicted by the Rutherford County (Tennessee) grand jury on one count of first degree premeditated murder. (Doc. No. 13-1, PageID# 100.) After a seven-day trial, a jury found Reynolds guilty as charged and the Circuit Court of Rutherford County (the trial court) sentenced him to life in prison with the possibility of parole. (Doc. No. 13-6, PageID# 695-97.) Attorneys Joe Mason Brandon, Jr., and R. Timothy Hogan represented Reynolds at trial.² (Doc. No. 1, PageID# 15.)

Represented by the same counsel, Reynolds filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied. (Doc. No. 13-6, PageID# 715-24.) Reynolds then appealed the judgment of the trialcourt, arguing that (1) his Sixth Amendment right to present a complete defense was violated when the trial court prevented him from offering testimony from and about an alternative suspect named Karla Teutsch, who had previously been declared a material and necessary witness; (2) the trial court violated his right to an impartial jury by allowing jurors to ask questions; (3) the trial court admitted inadmissible hearsay despite the objection of trial counsel; (4) the trial court erred by failing to give the jury a curative instruction after the jury witnessed members of the victim's family weeping; and (5) the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict. (Doc. No. 13-29, PageID# 3523-24.) The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals (TCCA) affirmed the trial court on December 16. 2010. Reynolds I, 2010 5343305, at *1. On May 25, 2011, the Tennessee Supreme Court denied Reynolds permission to appeal. (Doc. No. 13-34, PageID# 3753.)

On February 17, 2012, Reynolds filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the Circuit Court of Rutherford County (the post-conviction trial court) raising several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. (Doc. No. 14-1, PageID# 3759-61.) After holding an evidentiary on Reynolds's claims, the post-conviction trial court found that Reynolds was not entitled to relief. (Id. at PageID# 3777.) Reynolds appealed that decision arguing that his trial lawyers were constitutionally ineffective because they failed to (1) adequately prepare for his trial; (2) call as a witness Reynolds's custody lawyer, Laurie Young; and (3) file a motion for the trial judge to recuse himself. (Doc. No. 14-4, PageID# 3911-12.) The TCCA affirmed the post-conviction trial court and the Tennessee Supreme Court again denied permission for further review. Reynolds v. State, No. M2012-01978-CCA-R3-PC, 2013 WL 1857112, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 1, 2013) (Reynolds II); (Doc. No. 14-6); (Doc. No. 14-9).

Represented by attorney Andrew Hall, Reynolds filed this petition on May 27, 2014. (Doc. No. 1, PageID# 17.) Respondent has answered the petition (Doc. No. 12) and filed the state court record. (Doc. Nos. 13, 14.) Reynolds filed a reply. (Doc. No. 22.)

II. Statement of Facts

In ruling on Reynolds's appeal of his conviction on direct review, the TCCA provided the following summary of the evidence presented at trial:

This case arises from the killing of Melissa Atkin, the victim, on or about December 16, 2007, for which the Defendant was indicted on a charge of first degree premeditated murder. At his trial, the following evidence was presented: The victim's mother and father, Linda and Doug Atkin, testified the victim was thirty-six at the time of her death and had only one child, a son named Lucas, whose father was the Defendant and of whom the Atkins had custody at the time of trial. At the time of her death, the victim lived in Murfreesboro, in a house that she had owned for ten years, and she worked at F2 Industries located in Smyrna. The victim and the Defendant had known each other for ten to eleven years before her death. They began dating shortly after meeting, and the Defendant soon moved in with her.

The summer after their son was born, in 2001, the Defendant and the victim moved to Texas, but they moved back to Smyrna after one and a half years. When they returned, the Atkins noticed that the relationship between the victim and the Defendant had become "[v]olatile." In May of 2006, the Defendant moved out of the victim's house and moved into a rental house located just eleven houses from the Atkins's home. The Defendant would sometimes visit the Atkins, often when Lucas was at their house. Most, but not all, of these visits were "amicable."

After the Defendant moved out, the victim initiated custody proceedings to formalize the custody arrangement of Lucas, and, with the financial assistance of her parents, the victim retained attorney Mitchell Shannon to assist her in this regard. Before her death, papers had been served on the Defendant, who had also retained counsel, but the custody arrangement had not been finally resolved by the trial court. The Atkins felt their relationship with the Defendant changed after the victim initiated court proceedings regarding Lucas's custody and the Defendant expressed resistance to paying child support and insisted that no one come between him and Lucas. Ultimately, the Defendant ceased communicating with the Atkins, even when he came to their house to pick up Lucas, and the Atkins felt the Defendant's appearance deteriorated.

While the custody proceedings were ongoing, the victim told her father that her cell phone voicemail was full of messages from the Defendant, so he assisted her in recording them to a CD and then gave her a mini-cassette recorder to use to recordand preserve the phone messages in case they became relevant to the custody proceeding. Mr. Atkin identified the recordings, which were played for the jury. During this time, the victim worked full time, so Lucas went to daycare three days a week, and the Atkins kept him two days a week. Because she wanted to spend time with Lucas, the victim and Lucas participated in karate lessons together, and the Atkins sometimes watched these lessons. One such occasion was on Friday December 14, 2007, when the Atkins went to a karate school to watch as the victim attempted to obtain her second-degree green belt and Lucas attempted to obtain his brown belt. There, they saw the Defendant, who had come to support Lucas. The victim had originally planned to have Lucas's birthday party at the karate school on December 15, 2007, but the Defendant refused her request saying that it was his weekend with Lucas.

On December 15, 2007, Linda Atkin and the victim spent the day shopping and preparing for Lucas's postponed birthday party, eating dinner, and watching a movie at Linda Atkin's house. Before leaving her parents [sic] home on that Saturday night, the victim asked Linda Atkin to call her in the morning to make sure she was awake so she could meet her parents at church. The victim had told her parents that, after church, she would help bathe their dog and eat dinner with them. The victim also said before leaving that she intended to go to Wal-Mart before going home to purchase some items she needed for herself and for Lucas's party. She left between 8:00 and 9:00 p .m.

Linda Atkin called the victim on Sunday morning at 7:30 a.m. as they had planned, but the victim never answered the telephone. The Atkins went to church and called the victim again repeatedly upon their return home from church. At around 3:30 p.m. they drove to the victim's house where they noticed her car in the driveway and her front door locked. Linda Atkins recalled that the victim kept a key to her house hidden outside of her house. When the Atkins looked through the front window, they saw that the curtains to the sliding glass doors in the back were blowing. They went around back and entered the house, where they found the victim dead, lying on her stomach, naked from the waist down, with her hands tied behind her back. Doug

...