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.

Bedell v. Jordan

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division

June 29, 2017

DAVID RANDOLPH BEDELL PETITIONER
v.
SCOTT JORDAN RESPONDENT

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          Charles R. Simpson III, Senior Judge

         Petitioner, David Randolph Bedell, filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, seeking a writ of habeas corpus (DN 1). His petition raised a number of ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims as well as a “cumulative effect” claim. On preliminary consideration under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, the Court directed Petitioner to show cause why his petition should not be denied for failure to exhaust his state court remedies and as outside the applicable statute of limitations. Petitioner has responded (DN 9).

         In addition to filing his response, Petitioner has filed a motion to amend his habeas petition (DN 8) and a document titled “Objections Regarding the Proceedings of this Case” (DN 10).

         Motion to amend

         In his motion to amend (DN 8), Petitioner states that he wishes to amend his petition so that, rather than answering “no” to the question of whether other than direct appeals he has filed “any other petitions, applications, or motions concerning this judgment of conviction in any state court, ” the petition would indicate that he filed a motion for transcript of the record on or around August 24, 1994. He attaches a copy of a Kentucky Court of Appeals opinion affirming the Jefferson Circuit Court's denial of his request to be provided a trial transcript at state expense.

         The appellate court affirmed that denial in an opinion rendered May 3, 1996. He also attaches a Supreme Court of Kentucky order entered April 16, 1997, denying discretionary review of the appellate court decision not to provide a transcript.

         IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion (DN 8) to correct his petition to include his post-conviction request for a transcript of the record is GRANTED.

         Objections to the proceedings in this case

         In his “Objections Regarding the Proceedings of this Case” (DN 10), Petitioner objects to this Court's Order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed. That document argues that the Court erred by applying de novo review of his habeas petition.

         As set forth in the Court's show cause Order, the Court must conduct preliminary consideration of the habeas petition under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Under that Rule every habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must be examined, and if “it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” Only if the petition is not dismissed on preliminary review, will Respondent be ordered to file an answer or other response. It is this preliminary review in which the Court is engaging.

         Response to show cause

         In 1990, Petitioner was convicted of murder with a sentence of life without parole for twenty-five years; first-degree rape with a sentence of twenty years; kidnapping with a sentence of twenty years; first-degree wanton endangerment with a sentence of five years; and first-degree unlawful imprisonment with a sentence of five years, all sentences to run consecutively. In 1993, on direct appeal, the Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but remanded for an order directing all other sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently with the sentence of life imprisonment without parole for twenty-five years. Bedell v. Commonwealth, 870 S.W.2d 779, 783 (Ky. 1993).

         According to the petition as amended, Petitioner's only post-conviction[1] motion in state court was the motion for transcript of the record.

         • Exhaustion

         It is axiomatic that one may not seek federal habeas corpus relief until he has exhausted all available state remedies or demonstrated their inadequacies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b); Hannah v. Conley,49 F.3d 1193, 1196 (6th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). Any alleged constitutional deprivations must be asserted through the state appellate process. O'Sullivan v. Boerckel,526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999). The exhaustion doctrine is designed to give state courts “a full and fair opportunity to resolve federal constitutional claims before those claims are presented to the federal courts;” therefore, “state prisoners must give the state courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the State's established appellate review ...


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.