Sutton v. Bell
| Decision Date | 22 January 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 3:06-cv-388.,3:06-cv-388. |
| Citation | 683 F. Supp.2d 640 |
| Parties | Gary Wayne SUTTON, Petitioner, v. Ricky BELL, Warden, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee |
Susanne Bales, Federal Defender Services of Eastern Tennessee, Inc., Knoxville, TN, for Petitioner.
Andrew H. Smith, Tennessee Attorney General's Office, Frank R. Borger—Gilligan, Jennifer L. Smith, Office of the Attorney General, Nashville, TN, for Respondent.
Table of Contents
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND..........................................................647
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND.............................................................648
A. Trial Proof.................................................................648
1. Evidence Presented by State..............................................648
a. Crime.................................................................651
b. Investigation.........................................................652
2. Testimony Presented on Behalf of Sutton..................................652
3. Testimony Presented on Behalf of Both Defendants.........................653
4. Rebuttal Evidence Presented by State.....................................653
5. Verdict..................................................................653
B. Sentencing Proof............................................................653
C. Post-Conviction Proof.......................................................654
III. STANDARDS OF REVIEW............................................................663
A. Habeas Claims Cognizable Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254........................663
B. Review of Habeas Claims on the Merits.......................................663
C. Factual Bases for Habeas Claims.............................................664
D. Procedural Default..........................................................665
E. Miscarriage of Justice: Actual Innocence....................................666
F. Summary Judgement...........................................................668
IV. ANALYSIS.......................................................................669
A. Failure to Investigate and Present Evidence and State Court's Denial of Relief on This Claim was Objectively Unreasonable (Claim I)................669 1. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel........................................669 a. Brain Damage..........................................................671 b. Dellinger's Corrupting Influence and Control..........................674 c. Sutton's Family History...............................................675 B. Dr. Harlan Claim (Claim II).................................................681 C. Trial Counsel's Irreconcilable Conflict of Interest (Claim III).............682 D. Lack of Prior Notice of Dr. Harlan's Testimony (Claim IV)...................684 E. Counsel Failed to Present Evidence to Challenge the Branam Homicide (Claim V)..................................................................687 F. Denial of Severance Motion (Claim VI).......................................689 G. Admission of Evidence of Ms. Branam's Murder, Fight on Alcoa Highway, and Trailer Arson in Sevier County (Claim VII)....................691 H. Confrontation Rights (Claim VIII)...........................................694 I. Sutton's Tape-Recorded Statement (Claim IX).................................695 J. Biased Jury (Claim X).......................................................696 K. Revocation of Funding for Jury Consultant (Claim XI)........................698 L. Limiting Voir Dire (Claim XII)..............................................701 1. Restrictions on Death Penalty Questions..................................701 2. Mitigating Evidence......................................................702 M. Alleged Error For Failing to Excuse Juror Who Had Been Bribed (Claim XIII)......................................................................703 N. Revelation of Sevier County Trial (Claim XIV)...............................705 O. Conviction-Prone Jury (Claim XV)............................................707 P. Refusal to Instruct on Lesser Offense (Claim XVI)...........................707 Q. Failure to Instruct Jury Rebuttal Evidence & Last Person Seen (Claim XVII)......................................................................709 1. Refusal of Rebuttal Instruction..........................................709 2. Last Person Seen Instruction.............................................711 R. Reasonable Doubt Instruction (Claim XVIII)..................................712 S. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (Claim XIX)...............................714 T. Jury's Misperception About Sutton's Release Eligibility Date (Claim XX).....717 U. State's Closing Argument (Claim XXI)........................................719 V. Sentencing Instructions Reasonable Doubt and Aggravating Circumstance (Claim XXII)..................................................721 1. Reasonable Doubt Sentencing Phase Jury Instruction.......................721 2. Omission of Jury Instruction.............................................722 3. Aggravating Circumstance Insufficiently Supported and Manufactured...........................................................723 W. Refusal to Instruct on Non-Statutory Mitigation Evidence (Claim XXIII)......725 X. Other Constitutional Errors (Claim XXIV)....................................725 1. Mandatory Death Sentence.................................................725 2. No Specific Findings as to Mitigating Circumstances......................726 3. The Death Penalty as Cruel and Unusual Punishment........................727 4. The Aggravator Did Not Narrow Class of Offenders.........................728 5. Double Jeopardy..........................................................729 6. Flawed Proportionality Review............................................730 Y. Cumulative Error Argument (Claim XXV).......................................730 V. CONCLUSION.....................................................................730
Gary Wayne Sutton ("Sutton" or "Petitioner")1, a death-sentenced inmate at the Riverbend Maximum Security Institution in Nashville, Tennessee, brings this amended petition for writ of habeas corpus against the Warden, Ricky Bell ("Respondent"), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the legality of his confinement for his 1996 conviction for first degree murder Doc. 24. Respondent has filed an Answer Doc. 30 to the habeas corpus petition which conforms with Rule 5 but also contains an argument that the petition must be dismissed based upon procedural default and the deferential review standards set forth in § 2254(d) and Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000). The Court construes the Answer as a Motion for Summary Judgment, to which Sutton filed a response to Doc. 86, and Respondent filed a reply to Sutton's response Doc. 90. Thus, the case is ripe for review.2
After carefully considering the arguments of counsel and the applicable law, the Court will GRANT IN PART Respondent's motion for summary judgment Doc. 30. Specifically, the Court will RESERVE RULING on the motion as to Claim II in its entirety (the issues pertaining to Dr. Harlan) and will permit those claims to proceed to an evidentiary hearing. In addition, the Court will RESERVE RULING on Petitioner's cumulative error claim pending the resolution of the Dr. Harlan issues. In all other respects, the motion for summary judgment Doc. 30 will be GRANTED.
On September 1, 1996, Petitioner Sutton and his co-defendant and uncle, James Dellinger, were convicted by a jury in Blount County, Tennessee of the 1992 first-degree murder of Tommy Griffin Addendum No. 18, p. 5530. After finding one aggravating circumstance—that Sutton was previously convicted of two felonies whose statutory elements involved the use of violence to the person—the jury determined death was the appropriate punishment for the premeditated murder Addendum No. 18, p. 5512.
Petitioner's conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Dellinger & Sutton (hereinafter "State v. Sutton"), No. # 1997-00196-CCA-R3-DD, 2001 WL 220186 (Tenn.Crim.App. Mar. 7, 2001) Addendum No. 22, State v. Dellinger & Sutton (hereinafter "State v. Sutton"), 79 S.W.3d 458 (Tenn.2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1090, 123 S.Ct. 695, 154 L.Ed.2d 635 (2002).
On direct appeal to the Tennessee Criminal Court of Appeals, Petitioner Sutton raised twenty-three issues—thirteen trial issues and ten sentencing issues. State v. Sutton, 2001 WL 220186, at *10-43.
Petitioner filed his original petition for post-conviction relief on March 3, 2003, in the Criminal Court of Blount County, Tennessee. Petitioner alleged twenty-three instances of ineffective assistance of counsel Addendum No. 22. Petitioner filed amended petitions on June 2, 2003, and March 29, 2004 Addendum No. 34, pp. 6631-45 and 6660-61. After an evidentiary hearing on May 25 and 26, 2004, the trial court denied relief Addendum No. 34, pp. 6611-22.
On September 21, 2004, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal. Petitioner appealed to the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals raising ten claims. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief. Sutton v. State, No. E2004-02305-CCA-R3-PD, 2006 WL 1472542 . Petitioner's application for permission to appeal was denied by the Tennessee Supreme Court on October 2, 2006 Addendum No. 40, p. 7385.
Petitioner initiated the instant habeas proceedings on or about October 5, 2006, and filed his initial habeas petition on May 11, 2007 Doc. 14, and an amended habeas petition on July 6, 2007...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lynch v. Hudson
...violates due process '[o]nly if there are no permissible inferences the jury may draw from the evidence[.]' " Sutton v. Bell, 683 F. Supp. 2d 640, 692 (E.D. Tenn. 2010) (quoting Jammal v. Van de Kamp, 926 F.2d 918, 920 (9th Cir. 1991)). In the instant case, the Ohio Supreme Court rejected P......
-
Moshos v. Knab
...violates due process '[o]nly if there are no permissible inferences the jury may draw from the evidence[.]'" Sutton v. Bell, 683 F.Supp.2d 640, 692 (E.D.Tenn. 2010) (quoting Jammal v. Van de Kamp, 926 F.2d 918, 920 (9th Cir. 1991)). For the reasons addressed by the state appellate court, Pe......
-
Smith v. Warden
..."The 'failure to make every factual argument to support [a] claim does not constitute a failure to exhaust.'" Sutton v. Bell, 683 F.Supp.2d 640, 666 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 22, 2010) (citing Patterson v. Cuyler, 729 F.2d 925, 929 (3rd Cir. 1984); Picard, 404 U.S. 270)). This Court therefore conclu......
-
Zagorski v. Mays
...the defendant did not commit the offense, notwithstanding the jury's verdict following the guilt phase.’ " Sutton v. Bell , 683 F.Supp.2d 640, 715 (E.D. Tenn. 2010). If not for ineffective counsel, the jury would have received (a) evidence of another suspect's plot to kill the victim and (b......