Judge Trauger
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Petitioner Sentoryia Young, a state prisoner serving a sentence of life without the possibility of parole for second degree murder as a repeat violent offender, has filed a pro se petition and amended petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for the writ of habeas corpus (ECF Nos. 1, 2), which were followed by the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 15) and counsel's filing of the operative second amended petition (ECF No. 30). The respondent has filed an answer, along with a copy of portions of the state court record (ECF Nos. 33 and 34), and the petitioner has now filed a reply (ECF No. 71) and two supplements accompanied by additional portions of the state court record (ECF Nos. 72, 73).
This matter was stayed from March 12, 2013, until May 30, 2013, pending the United States Supreme Court's decision in Trevino v. Thaler, 133 S. Ct. 1911 (2013). (ECF Nos. 50, 52.) The court subsequently denied the petitioner's motion for discovery, finding that no good cause existed for the particular discovery sought because the claims related to the proposed discovery were procedurally defaulted despite the impact of Trevino and Sutton v. Carpenter, 745 F.3d 787 (6th Cir. 2014). (ECF No. 66.)
This case is now fully briefed and ripe for review. For the reasons set forth below, the petition for the writ of habeas corpus will be denied.
I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY At the petitioner's first trial in March 2004, a witness alluded to his prior criminal history after the trial court expressly ordered that no such reference was to be made. The petitioner requested and was granted a mistrial. Young v. State, No. M2010-01762-CCA-R3-PC, 2011 WL 3630128, at *1, 4 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 18, 2011) (Docket Entry No. 34-30). The petitioner was retried in Davidson County Criminal Court and was convicted on December 14, 2004, of second degree murder and two counts of aggravated assault. (ECF No. 34-1, at 143-44.) He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the second degree murder conviction, as a result of his status as a repeat violent offender. (ECF No. 34-1, at 157.) He was also sentenced to six years in prison for each of the aggravated assault convictions, to be served concurrently with the life sentence. (ECF No. 34-1, at 158-59.) The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences on direct appeal, and the Tennessee Supreme Court denied permission to appeal on December 8, 2008. State v. Young, No. M2005-01873-CCA-R3-CD, 2008 WL 2026108 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. May 12, 2008), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. Dec. 8, 2008) (Docket Entry No. 34-26). The record does not reflect that the petitioner sought certiorari from the United States Supreme Court.
While the petitioner's direct appeal was pending in the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, he filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis in the trial court, which was denied following an evidentiary hearing. (ECF No. 34-19, at 5-7, 79-87.) The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed that judgment in the petitioner's consolidated direct appeal, on which the Tennessee Supreme Court denied review. State v. Young, 2008 WL 2026108, at *11-14 (Docket Entry No. 34-26).
The petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief on January 8, 2009 (ECF No. 34-27, at 22), and filed an amended petition through counsel on June 12, 2009. (ECF No. 34-27, at 40.) The trial court denied relief on July 8, 2010. (ECF No. 34-27, at 59-64.) TheTennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the denial, and the Tennessee Supreme Court again denied permission to appeal on November 16, 2011. Young v. State, No. M2010-01762-CCA-R3-PC, 2011 WL 3630128, at *1, 4 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 18, 2011) (Docket Entry No. 34-30).
Pursuant to the prison mail-box rule, Petitioner filed his original petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in this court on March 23, 2012. (ECF No. 1-1, at 1.) Respondent does not dispute that this action is timely.
The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals on direct appeal summarized the facts of the case as follows:
This case arises from an altercation occurring in front of a Comfort Inn hotel room in Hermitage. During the early morning hours of January 23, 2002, the Defendant shot at three men, Torey Pillow, Aaron "Shawn" Pillow, and Wayne Robison. As a result, a Davidson County grand jury indicted the Defendant for second degree murder (Torey Pillow) and two counts of aggravated assault (Shawn Pillow and Wayne Robison). See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-102, -210 (defining the offenses of second degree murder and aggravated assault). A jury trial was held in December of 2004.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the proof at trial showed that, on the evening of January 22, 2002, Shawn Pillow had rented a hotel room at the Comfort Inn in Hermitage. At some point in the evening, the Defendant and David Clark arrived at the hotel room. The Defendant was driving a silver Pontiac. Torey Pillow, Shawn Pillow's brother, picked up Wayne Robison in his maroon Buick, and they joined the group at a strip club. The Defendant, David Clark, Shawn Pillow, Torey Pillow, Chris Grizzard, and Wayne Robison were all in attendance at the club.
While at the club, David Clark gave his phone number to one of the strippers. Thereafter, the group left and went to another strip club, but it was closed. While the group was in the parking lot of the second strip club, the woman to whom Clark had given his number telephoned. The group met up with the two women, Chithantkia Fisher and Denita Smith.
All these individuals then returned to Shawn's hotel room. Torey Pillow dropped off his passengers and left. The women agreed to provide sex to the remaining men for $250.
Torey returned in the early morning hours to pick up his brother and Robison. Shawn and Robison got in the car with Torey, and they left the hotel. One of thewomen had noticed that her money was missing from her pants. Grizzard called the three men inquiring about the missing money. The Pillows and Robison returned to the hotel and began arguing with Grizzard about the missing cash. Grizzard was demanding compensation and accused Robison of "cockin' a strap," or cocking his pistol. In order to show that the gun was not cocked, Robison raised his hands and said "I ain't doin' nothing." The Defendant then approached the passenger's side of the vehicle and began firing. Shawn Pillow and Wayne Robison testified that they saw the Defendant fire first. Shawn then returned fire at the Defendant.
Torey Pillow died as a result of a gunshot wound to the head. Wayne Robison was shot in his thigh, and Shawn Pillow was shot in the stomach.
State v. Young, No. M2005-01873-CCA-R3-CD, 2008 WL 2026108, at *1-2 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 12, 2008).
III. ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW In his Second Amended Petition, Petitioner asserts the following claims for relief:
1. The evidence was insufficient to support the conviction.
2. Trial counsel had a conflict of interest.
3. Improper presence of extraneous document in jury room violated Petitioner's right to fair trial.
4. Prosecutor committed misconduct by intimidating a witness.
5. Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress statement made under the influence of alcohol and drugs.
6. Trial counsel was ineffective at first trial for failing to move for mistrial with prejudice.
7. Conviction violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.
8. Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge validity of prior conviction used to enhance Petitioner's sentence.
9. Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek relief based on sleeping jurors.
10. Trial court erred in failing "to correct the obviously intolerable situation of jurors sleeping through the presentation of evidence."
11. Trial court erred in admitting chart created by witness at prosecutor's direction.
12. Prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument.
13. Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to impeach witness at coram nobis hearing.
14. Trial court erred in failing to act as thirteenth juror at hearing on motion for new trial.
15. Prosecution violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by failing to disclose witness's mental illness to Petitioner before or during trial.
16. Appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise claims on appeal.
17. Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to strike the jury panel after prejudicial statements by prospective juror.
18. Trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses and refusing to instruct that an element of second degree murder is "a knowing killing without adequate provocation."
19. Trial court erred in admitting gruesome and inflammatory photographs of deceased victim's body.
20. [This claim has been affirmatively withdrawn by Petitioner. (ECF No. 71, at 54.)]
21. Prosecutor's discretion to prosecute Petitioner as a Repeat Violent Offender is unconstitutional.
22. Jurors committed misconduct during voir dire by misrepresenting that they could consider self-defense and defense of others as a valid defense to a murder charge.
23. Tennessee's post-conviction review process is constitutionally inadequate in violation of the right to due process.
24. Use of Petitioner's prior conviction to enhance his current sentence violates the prohibition on Ex Post Facto laws.
25. Cumulative effect of errors amounts to constitutional violation.
A. AEDPA Review on the Merits The statutory authority of federal courts to issue habeas corpus relief for persons in state custody is provided by 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"). A federal court may grant habeas relief to a state prisoner "only on the...
