Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Simpson v. Evans

February 13, 2009

SHABONDY LAMAR SIMPSON, PETITIONER,
v.
M. EVANS, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.



FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On April 6, 2005, the undersigned ordered respondent to file a response to the petition. On July 29, 2005, respondent filed a timely answer, and on September 29, 2005, petitioner filed a timely traverse. This case is now submitted for decision and in due course, the court will issue its findings and recommendations.

Pending before the court is petitioner's motion to amend his petition to add ten new claims along with his proposed amended petition. Respondent has filed a timely opposition to the motion to amend. Petitioner has not filed a reply.

PETITIONER'S ORIGINAL PETITION

Petitioner raises six grounds for relief in his original petition: GROUND ONE: Petitioner's conviction is unlawful, based upon perjured testimony triggering a miscarriage of justice within the trial court.

GROUND TWO: The trial court abused its discretion by denying petitioner's new trial violating his 6th and 14th U.S. Const. Amend. Rights.

GROUND THREE: Petitioner was deprived of effective assistance of counsel who failed to conduct an adequate investigation and subpoena witnesses in support of an acquittal to the false kidnap/assault allegations violating petitioner's 6th and 14th U.S. Const. Amendment Rights.

GROUND FOUR: The prosecution committed misconduct by intentionally allowing his witness to give perjured testimony during the trial violating petitioner's 6th and 14th Const. Amend. Rights to a fair and just trial.

GROUND FIVE: The prosecution team failed to disclose detailed statements taken by investigating police that could have cleared petitioner of kidnapping charges violating the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

GROUND SIX: Petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel on his direct appeal in violation of the due process clause and petitioner's Sixth Amendment rights. (Pet. at 25-74.)

As noted above, respondent has filed a timely answer to the petition and petitioner has filed a traverse.

PETITIONER'S MOTION TO AMEND

In his motion to amend, petitioner requests leave to add the following ten claims: GROUND SEVEN: The trial court's admission of irrelevant evidence denied petitioner his right to a fair trial and violated his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.

GROUND EIGHT: Petitioner's rights to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated by the trial court's failure to properly instruct the jury and providing erroneous instructions violating Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.

GROUND NINE: Petitioner's right against self incrimination under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution were violated.

GROUND TEN: The court violated petitioner's due process and equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by permitting prejudicial testimony about other crimes.

GROUND ELEVEN: Petitioner's rights to a fair trial and due process under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated by court's denial of petitioner's motion to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.