United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Charles R. Simpson III, Senior Judge
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).
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 (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.
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.
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.
to the proceedings in this case
“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.
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.
to show cause
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).
to the petition as amended, Petitioner's only
post-conviction motion in state court was the motion for
transcript of the record.
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 ...