O'Kelley v. Warden, No. 4:2015cv00104 - Document 104 (S.D. Ga. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER granting 88 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; granting 103 Motion Requesting Ruling on Procedural Issues. The Court finds that the Petitioner will not be permitted to brief any claim raised in Claim II, Claim III, Claim IV, Claim V, Claim VI, Claim VII, Claim VIII or Claim IX. The Court finds that Petitioner will not be permitted to brief many of his claims related to alleged errors made by his trial counsel. Petitioner will be permitted to brief claims related only to his trial counsel's failure to investigate and present mitigation evidence related to Petitioner's background and mental health. Signed by Judge William T. Moore, Jr on 4/2/19. (jrb)

Download PDF
O'Kelley v. Warden Doc. 104 '--•1 rr:^ .' i•.^5rCPbMi IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA £K|I:?6 SAVANNAH DIVISION DORIAN FRANK O'KELLEY, SO. L'lo r. OF GA. Petitioner, CASE NO. CV415-104 V. WARDEN, GDCP, Respondent. ORDER In 2005, Petitioner Dorian Frank O'Kelley was convicted and sentenced to death by the Superior Court of Chatham County for the murders of Susan Pittman and her thirteen-year-old daughter, Kimberly Pittman. (Doc. 33, Attach. 5 at 15-16; Doc. 16, Attach. 19 at 2-5.) After the completion of his direct appeal and state habeas court proceedings. Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus in this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction and death sentence on a number of grounds. (Doc. 1.) Currently before the Court are the parties' briefings on procedural default, cause and prejudice, and the fundamental miscarriage of justice.^ (Doc. 87; Doc. 89; Doc. 92.) After a careful review of the parties' briefs and the record. Petitioner ^ After careful consideration. Respondent's Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages (Doc. 88) is GRANTED. The Court will consider Respondent's excess pages within this order. Dockets.Justia.com

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.