Dodd v. Indiana Department of Corrections et al, No. 3:2021cv00029 - Document 21 (N.D. Ind. 2022)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim. The Clerk is DIRECTED to attach a copy of Jermaine DShann Dodds Petition for Permission to File Successive Verified Petition for Post-Conviction Relief and Petition for Rehearing to this order. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 3/16/22. (Attachments: # 1 Petition for Permission, # 2 Petition for Rehearing)(mlc)

Download PDF

Dodd v. Indiana Department of Corrections et al Doc. 21 Att. 1 1N THE ~ Or;“" “ 'INDIANA Cou T ”W "‘ j m 83/qu mWSE NO, Teaming Dom), F CW > VET‘T‘W, No. LAKE WW MM GREGom R PACHMAYR . Rom We ) v cougg LOWER ) a Su PE Wag C° ueT ' ' ) STATE oF INDIANA, The ) Respwdwf, H'ON. Mumw ’D. clm w , 5mm ) “To F1 LE ION ?EKMISS ?ETITioN FOR PDST— CoHvIchN QEDEF Fog TIoN PeTI VERIFIED $um€ss§ve boDD>p£0§€ 9&3“de LoweTS Is RCQwsTs} n" PeTl oueKj '5m2MA1Mk3 7 I Comes Now The VOST-chic’k’iou gube 2, > MAC; To TMARMAA Ito ISLE A s‘mcggswg Vaa w P{ op 5p. Pog Cva‘aCUOIJ ggM‘lssi‘OrJ «CBHoWS’r P i’ ouaz sTngs MoTn‘oN) This 0P Edie? 2W tpcrLT "GUM gf— Pfllbz PC’TI ” | ‘ ‘ M s KEPKE$ENTEA Wale Yew A. KEMP ?osT,CopvlcTioM “ (aw? NW E5" WA AJA ESS 930:3 ~ 2.. 3. WAS I? WW‘F‘Q OM Mm 0P cow‘w/How Them The A ND AT’Co lkbE l-Mj 0r nch v N. PoWTJjwmm Mam 314$,ng AT WNW ’QF G>DKMDTIMC7 ? i—EOM QM) D Pr W307 > Chyggow‘aam s CID ON xlou ATTomJex‘ [E’MIQS- <0 ) r&bho DEQMa/d mu b\f MIN“ 4mm Ekck POST’ COMViCT'nDM 450a 0C 905T, Wu; Mqés D Kvp wau éd £77012wa [?HLC’F,‘ Ho CCI~N|¢IW elieP:Wx\£-'s E] mm“ Poe 9057 ~ f / zs KEMP? Wine? 0N P{UTNM wAs \jwa dented) i. HO Pam die! klov» Pa'aTmM ? Mxtzs "PPEAL 7 Mx‘f‘? D N0 D D No NO Dockets.Justia.com REQUT OM {4?ng bAfE rogm'eo 0M CASL: 1F \LMowu; QTA‘CE j]: gs) phase ) ‘WMM M— Mud 'IP ‘L Famous ‘0)“: 3S M62756}: f N07 DFC/siU/v PMsg ?6Ti/(io y ) Jaw /Q_ w ”. GKWMAQ) Fo 216%? MEGIMC’; Mia \{OM m I ’To clTATI‘OU bedsa'mu op NS‘EA ”We“? we‘ ; EXpl m wer qQ-El Coma'clz h‘ éu \{w N0 f j? 5. \{mul Pmoa A ____.....—-—’ 937mm MN P{fi’ 'op)wp‘m:d \Wm dplmr ou How qwg “N z s‘we o coucwsiwgz jag \lou Es m€2€ W86 po’f yum fz ismcj 0N «?CTS‘S @er Shown} PJa’ om’e— ”(RAT Mew @ROuMdS KMSES )Ncmgga ”me“ Gamma; NOT 40w: oPiNnoMS 3K Nowafiwia wn k dzmous qx wm ff ff we «(M WT IN RH o? ”M To 9 UMAVMP‘ME f/T’ PEQvM‘gsmN , . QEQMESTS fosT- m, Tm /.. E gkl’“gk -L‘i€_“i“*bL€ (o common! game WHEREFORE, m PeTl- omm To INDIANA CoMJS of #99645 g TM To show HEW @Kwuds his Pemwwg Wesef Na/V afgwds “ ve RT’IT‘MW— wmdd 55“me m w, A evMuk’LbM wmn‘uu «WA exmviw téu Tun 3mm eerxc’S’C p. DATED: g n m p HTML“ rw‘N siqnmze: Z he B 90w. 7kg Png'ow’ nWl‘rocmm ge‘Z‘O": Up 65177160! Sucgesrive gamma Fm A jws HoNoMéw Quu T esaou, 95mm possimm ggg‘ Wmsgw WW «Che PosT-CoMV‘IJiW 13d“? w hiN Coma “Q‘s. («0W7 “T; go ggmj gE TIFICHE I Aw ’Wxé ) @ l/ a 55mins k a‘ 20g, z m -[l‘pw SFILVQJ j: m m succés w ’wmd m A 11612?)in mmmzzea palm; 0M Wis’q‘ z ma Tmué L1. s TI zmtSst/d 0M Fm, op 11% g\\owm<‘1) PETITE @PW CWT 43M uMcLacsmntec 3 0p 0F Minor: 9a Po: 17> CONVICTION APFI‘LeADMmII‘MG gY asT CUBS pOSvaaE Employer? 9P TALE AN Public /N07m( momma SW‘W )bwlt i MA Miami ”/2 )‘5058 W€5T 860 ci/{G CDWcT/w/Jrl 1.0.0.6) Mimi ss/xrs 43K Hm jmima «(WWW WT PW!“ WM , ”er Cw é 2m 31mg CLt/Kk 0F M» sTmz 0F W Iuonm‘ couu‘m 0F Subsczibeé Appe is3 3 1‘ mmL. 6 momwvlc, malprmjwzw) DAVJI House) 01’; .- . ) )SSZ NOTPrKIZA‘Tla/q ) awvmd "[0 MIA R666 W A Now“ 5 Cowg'uxbmd \ \ PULBUQ 1N W3 VEZ ”Me Above Mourg 7 weswmw DIN 0F MM M1 ‘Eipia-Es: W commission 7 91mm 0mm, / \(éfn‘i 7 ‘s #3 Kali. id,“ 0F l {w $TA’EG ANQL Th: Nam ‘. wmvtz MA’WaE Si ‘ J 0mm paw m ee IN THE INDIANA (Lawm- W QMSE No. SERMWXNE boob} o APPeALS Lewd CMKT ) ’ ‘I l l- CF' oo a Wong; 51 cuwk CHASE NO. v lj aa ‘ 1 g P_ETiTtoHEg, g CHASE N0: (Ta be ) v. STATE op 1ND:ANA 5 JWT) ”WW COMM )) Twas: Wondey ', , ORDER Comes To subMTfs Pors/l’ ” ne Conw‘nc’ ord "WW bake, Amlx‘ w g Mow Th5 kbove— NA/Me’A P a’ owaa) 92036) g bRJ—n‘w OP ”WW Coma” A Vaai aé PETE’ITOU pugsum ' "Te FINA. PC Q&[b’i‘g 2, 66W?) WT kAulsEJ ae: k 96m Am! MOW ORDERS ’Wx/E sh); fmspecTeol 9%??me INA EIIQWMQ‘SZ pu sww‘f Pace) 4m 4&2, 3Tne 2.7% aespoud ”E W1 oé sm'é 02392. w SO ORDERED «P wimp; 93mm mum 13mm» 153s ”MY «Pr? GWQQ€ COPWPS ’To This CaM T 5M”) l. 75w Cienk oP Vgogegjmg .6370”er ”ME ?JiTsou upon: salve A oopxg «P o’lwaewax op, :2,le mswa‘l d.\'§7;-ibu'(7£ K50 ’TB z d MTowew‘ ,AW Cumux ~ @osecima 931—“ka j. DOAA ) J ow; ma m5 #320... ’IN THE Couz‘r o; APPEALS ‘INDlPrNA cwse UEKMAIME D000) V'f‘o PE‘WTIONER) ) g ENDIMA, “$5?“me b9 supplied, b\i CIERK o? T96 CORT LpWexz QmmT cMSé 2-W%u-cP—ooau s No.14” V. STATe 0F Mo. ) ) 1'71ka j H9“. Can'r IMAQE, C&MENc/e D. Mugerri ; VERIFIED PET: TioM CoMes @Aiwn To Now ”Me F‘ok Pe’ ’l'fouee3 ?os’TrCouvr'c’lToM jamming Dog; P t ' ‘ou Ra oeiez'mkt (Lemma; Mimi commow 5‘qu r3036 WesT 850 swim: Buuk z Hill):):uch}wa— 1. mm daemon c»? WA 56.61me ; op Cmu T' Ma SucLGlg ’TfmT FM 0564 Mm’ujj égrj FSupaaioL CDWJF u Ln’ke CoMMTngzzaa N. Iocw‘Tlou CzowM Po.‘uT}j3uAnirun-,4w3°7+ gqe WE r‘cil‘rcv §P ) 2..NMA£ 3o PuzsuwT ANA Po -GNVIEH’ow KEMP: ZwLELQJTO 4H? “Me V ‘ d TWOCz) Oopi s 9F 7W5 POST, Couvrc’riou RELIEE CWSE NMMBQZ SENTENCE W I was ?mlooseas «.7— Woe D. Mummy, wh'mlq 'Ttw oPPENSECS) 0.1 o-PQMge 155g 4seoa’qgna-CP-ooau Mu oe-a - r—f‘r 4. o? 7R6 Jar? upon! ’lT/w f sstche: WHO“ sm’Cc-vuce M’s {Mposea 4w; "IRE ”reams WSI'FGL \{grnas ,'_____...——-————‘_'— _._-—— ,ngw APR “J.“ If“ 1 1 2013 GREGORY R. PACWAVR ax; QERKOFCOURTS STA? c: - 5. m WAS D WW. Wat t2 W b, D14 f1. Wm 8 09 Guir A (WEB pm pr 92m m jiaMauT \[Es E] Mo Wes" To «uswma ahw NW CWPJ Eddhwtl - 45A03— 010% l9 mmmfg gm“; ,‘5 8. w—OZ‘: gamma pa nsiéz 0L «m EMEA 7 kgpe g $663870” $556: unpubllskea ’{KE Ong-L i3 MAM . JaxkithLJI as ”Ma Concise“ MI Sf e gee [— . WW C&‘Z’lép ’W ’er ggSMT ANA 9 Mm A mdLs u? c h‘rzw o? Much To 7 158T: (to), 1M Cown o? OR ? o? NsT aw: (T1 ,W _/ w 1F M&JXZ Gw‘r ‘ op QMcUAQ aeowcls commute 13§ la.) '“rxz Tabb 40,442 WT "ml: wows swayed sa awe. MprT'cez DoAA's.,. \ACA‘ Mg) «(Se WA couw‘cTioM owegs - qua ’To “4.39%?me jquWT 99' I _ , S ma wine; amass Cous‘nfu’ -ou ‘ck 4“ Séc—no ia)‘ f. Q/f/f/ 0 QMTEEH’W MAME N farm ’66 AL ‘ a f ‘//'— Q. concisew W 3M ’er emw 3%,pr \Nkakal ’er’VIKL WT STArEe m» o? TM 3) SW 0W ”W Ms s «MA m LAC): ai ‘omu ‘2". SMMEJ 1314/33 whirl (e): WWW i Sb‘ fSJk-jg'o ’ :uAQMeMT opg DoAA-NELLRc’J Ra . Imcéwa 9? qCa): cou‘l’inumoe oomk ‘ou ANA WWNT w1MA TM Wee Muzm oP ”Me ST ‘CE 04> MMi-Uc'J wAs “mg 9P ’We 1:“ Mum Sum 9M Sui“ 19,2001 Supm'oa Cow} am 01911-0?» oozli 0M 51) m uoIJ CoMsTFCu’Tiou q uopdng samba Judge SEJEDM Q2) pa. iowz‘s/th rmdm D0443 943 O‘MMW LA)“: w/og {M‘Co SepTz’Mbef— ”rag 0‘: Tam o? M‘M. ’[ke ST ie Ms cowiaieé» m0 M,ZOOL $665414 ’01 o“ WT bow coMMKTTEJ cmse bocJCeT ”we ‘mn “Tim c im mmsa LtSQozd t— ENTamgxk$fL s m swag 09w” mmbm 0P cause "1—618 Okdm kibmgz)‘ Nouwben 7,31%(see; LL such c ims As MA ozig’amL yaixua’fw own swam: comma Wm?“ CW? Mme: «(seoz—qgn-cP-oozu jNgiwa m4 Convic-(T‘ou gadqma o? mum p wu m. rump. AT “Hm void '[Re oM xk‘tLiT-B). WW4 1M1 useoz-qeu-cP-oozn m CoMéTI'UuTiw ANA ”We courcem ATT«4<)7>044 A 1kg pé ‘ wen M16664 .L. Q4 TL) p aT.‘owaa§ Rme‘IEEN‘m OWL)E’xkib§T—A) [NJ smTeHce'J en 15,2001. (sat; b-1901 wkiok wens stTalw op (see; 7—18-01 . STWS MTicLe o? D. juACw m sEU'CGMCE violr } uc, CW WT . Superb; Cousz (puny HDWeVE , 1T ’sz‘ SAME owof wkidA W’Cebe ’er $46:st 209942) Divis‘uou CPJMKML qseoz-‘mu- CP-oozu bt‘o‘ was {u sareeuce c? common AMA ((58027 Subjec’f MATTEL o? CMS€ NMMbEL Misclic—Tfou 0V6". ‘Tl/w No’f km 3 Sugawa s op SM; (3)15»: MA akib‘uTS (A) é quiv cP-oozLi (SEE; “TM Is LAkE " ve Wen comic‘ ‘ou A6 iuiTco 57mg hSe wbn t in ma viotn’Ces ConéTiT iou Tue ma 45 Qoz—qui-CP-oozu game W's .H TH; Cpm i‘C iou (12.), LN); o—P 9336C?“ A idg i. Seams WAaz‘Mm g1 1w: CMLT Aw Mien To wave on Among «(Le KEQUEJS curve. WWW was vohi k6 ”WM iu‘t’Tio L ck MA MW c?- WWW SW36“ mA/oa void WMMT o? 66mm be m 'TH ” w 951m: oP UNTEQ Euimm jugww’riou Lemmas M Adams jmée‘waf o? com' n‘ou pm; sm‘Cmce -3- m1 Tim. mm (mg \loiJ M01 susoe ble’ Mk‘t‘oa: Smiseuc‘ ou ATTMKEA AT Veil )‘rhe'n‘z {765“ka NMMEm f Ej/ /// // jewkiN/a DbJA warns; mmmumce o? a(a): P.c.K, r Ltseoz-qaii-CP-oozii To QoNvioTJOM 'lZe'l‘téP tag Warm; 3““ch Quiz 1 SECTBONCL) pm; p957 .. Seafouéz) 4-1." 10. “ms pgmwj Palm To 'To C3) A1” Pa‘Tfou Qt) WAKE 0:2 905T ConvicTuou 6k PCE ? me; wrm mp“? «29W? )oumsum‘f L) No \(€S Pm’ ous AW You cggw‘c' ‘ond: (Wis aw FCL (b) MW Ra habe‘ks Co pvxs {us «S 1W6 v? "TI: 64m ? C”) C) N0 W's C0 AM Fg ms 454 ewe m WM smas CWT ” ve +6.3 QEKTOKKK] 7 L) N0 (x) \{65 _ La) ANY CWZT 071492 9K A’NL‘ (X) ll. .OETITmms) M5T.‘ow5 CoueT 7 0L Applic ioms {M 9W L ‘1“ ) N0 . Ifs‘T ?meT 910 6.0% IF \{w AMSWEKEJ "x(es“ “To 0K Appliu 'i—ou', Pg-TzTi‘ou) M6110“ gc’s‘necj ‘To ench W1 C3) i. W afeci o 967mm Lam: NPTCME: Wmvic—nb 17$ 7W5 g sh‘e ' ZSMFZ PosTrCouvtljt‘ou 941 ?EECOMW'EE'ON @{Lér Waiaém‘l H. 1.. 44‘ ,2 mykco smvy -Suacarsw‘vé W7"; W‘W M'— h Parr; cm {Se m. ’ 'HH. WM o? “12mm; M — Panm a; egkmm ?Jc’ m To Tm t 1;an @5’ cnwm— smmw COMM Lb>m€ NW NJ lookmou 09W CoM T' Luke Cowu‘Cy whnth flu 611,14 WAs led: 'i m‘wa CowLTi j M; 9“ e k mm WT W7 1M WW M M MA Mi. CWM—CL/ L' é‘ aw WT tH. £LW Cwu’C-x‘t (A/‘CE' MALT OP 5mg: 19am WW* r '. °. e? 002451 Syedoz 25%;”. umnga «STATES Sp Appms jag o)? 410,0 Malina; 9H3 Swp ewe— CoMLT CC) A‘EPOSHTOU OP ’WW d t-CE 0g i W» mTiou (JETTIDUJ - 0LI ~THE V475 l- 9 A— oh' ‘mw J/[s'oos‘n’l-fouz , Tke VeTTu‘ou 5,4 10.0.K’.CL)WA5 $90,132; C.£.(Z,) 0:9 IJLWIP *T/f 504057 01C inkl‘mwr H 4-92 WPWS' b&ol I'MEJ GMT alck pé ’fmlkfa/ .._— mm’ ‘é ‘F; LDJTWN bUWOé USC, }3~§¢f 0U m m1!“ 7:37_oy ”57170” {0/28/03’ n“ 0M ~25~05 u‘wr’ comm I” NW?" Amww Pa m: x—sroq TH? 267 4’ ”rs“ ’Ll ' Jun. I z'u 1-;N "~_/ bl“. {{ ’ ‘ou‘ Mas £163 0N MMO‘I 5,300? A - "-— r ' '5' ’lL - t‘ M '"v.“ £15ch 0M 7R5 OodcsT mag! 1.32009 [wk Eamon 91L kWh?“ o? ca jcozmi we! calmfeil. ° £ ° l” *WS Pe’ ’ oMEL file; ' ' ' JAM“ a, ehmiuewmck 'wgkl,‘m Dana! ow q- 3b- 05 PcTiTiou €41 APPMS #6361763 olf'éEEg; Deuim TRE HDVFG'HM PETITIOU ”Io ’Wxa Cwi—T o‘p CoM —‘T a? ’(M 4‘lC—Tt‘ow o£ -5- OM 19-“-03 5w Tm WUSéTAToM PM&SMMT o dévzs Emma Imp CA.) Owen .Iz. Hi . f: Q [9’98 #547 @g gag} Wm ”Wm Hm Mg awn? ExH g i) OKHL‘L‘ ‘TTm/W 'oL/ Dmcl amok Agra] v?- " f'e ma) m2; . .E. ) g g’f7 i/W H axA/gz'ril z L} 9007 5 No: 08 955V CDue/T «58¢; 7H1: Sup ém / smus)emm.£, T m WWgmmi) WWW ml. Q&nmkeo ea akcgt‘TEE—C) Ag: ‘5 (.391 ( \oaws A H s mus. M Qumwa Coma oi: L) i3. ’LP C3) kw \(65 Mswmwé. \{cw 0M ‘ (X) “x(es" 5m lomfoustv P&gseu‘tc’g 7.: fame“, sTA’Ce ca «(EclemL)(M WW6 ’Fikd ? \{W No TE, 'IJwTi—fxf (Lg) ) Q/LowcLs wkhh WNE > MW COMM R-pfhlu r'b'd Wkl'd" 0K MoTI'oM {M (3) SéT «QL’UA ' x V COMET oaoar. la-u-og ExhtzrrL. 12' cg ExL§I>TT_2;) M?ij M minim? ' “ le A5 olpwu'aus cLISPoS‘T-omsf em)! M’rm M ‘15 (TH; orchap '13 A’rf ckgcl {S "C’I o deé wnTF’CeM AM o? homiwsw bead ; \M/esa aal: 3. “-Q i 'm. Paomémcv N Oahu? WM “0“ 6'1““ “A5 ““641 x 24 'u. I'M. i"! 0 Wme gqmesn e; “(M amass OF: L2) \(ou "\{QWL by m ATToeM\{ AT » pthiMMT MMLMG 0‘) \{ES L) Mo Oc7~ f" MW mw (Lumucj 09 (d) \{€S 00 L ”(PPM \(QM£ 1 ma COMVGTEOM M0 ) i? mm ”(M A/mt {DETI‘G‘OM Mo'Tn‘oMS s M: (§§m \{w' 1. '13. “E, .o' 'HH. 't'ti'ti. MW .. ! Mama h a l a 6 3 jamm‘m Dad TKJM M” lb. Herve c in. 402702 S frva ‘g -W‘JWLWW-GW, . Ame: 4/9410? Wu wTM7 900 EAST. ‘f do gfa. C. l MW WNW ants:- \ Tc-wir Which AT W EAC‘A ATToagexl ,zfpgaESE-M‘Cg& Suck NA 1+5th FT t 0N kppm - C! Rom mw ?MWG PLH' R‘El un, \‘w Q OQMVLC 06M; ?CQL‘OM'T J N k . Tow Wears Coepwr'.’ 0N 9006M JLPeTt‘EQM 328 H.S.C. 985% “FELT“! 43L R5 n-Lmq UM‘VA ST -‘LG‘S CnupL OWs TO: WIEIT nk ou vws \{w Mo é (3%? {(14)} DEWELJIQ‘U MMm‘uW Pu z 3M; ‘romw: m CwT Wong w L') of 4mg oww cbwos' ComPtg‘CeA \{és Sétav'lc/e QX) a? No 8 ' SMDW W6 go L7 ' ' A ! w. s . Wilma: We @1340“; mmbo ' LC) camaggg gw 0F A OUC‘k—FIEON 5 WW4 @ fVCT £664 ?(><)\[es L) N0 « éP‘exsa“Tea WW0 ekoh ArTToW\1 WZL ’1’“ ‘3 eF Re‘pkow Lb)/\R£ P oceeé‘mas I 0K j «Md Auldwass ggviu '? me To Tb“: aonlvk’ om)wtu'ok You owe cg \(w A—MSNERE’J “%€5"7O 1'? 6F seM’Ceww e 15 “MloosTTToM Pwpm zou, mesam—Tiom (F) $46me ’Wvé )me/I No C ) (X) \(e's .7 ? SEIJGEMCJMG \‘QWQ Le) M \{Es ()0 "E para C) Mo 1? C) Mo \(€$ 71M? \{m Lt) 15. WA \{wz WM'emn/w-MT Cb) Tvue '? 0K 7 vckkHEMGeJ sauTeMce 7 1'1. Have \{m mum” ms ez’TMueA gepezsew’f Ta Wt "Ms ‘w ’7 Paoce‘ecltuq C 18¢ I? WA \{cw rmmm a COMETIOM 0M b‘ 0W“ ’T‘m wiTRm/Tf s’ lcigieuT 15‘1qu A822 W )W "N0" Pub Do 1w \tw 1° D9913” g 1N1 4W?“ eMplovt ”L3 cwwét DWMTMWT op ggpasm’f \{uu 110 «r0 KEPEESWTIL’H‘GU WWRKM. AMER’IWM ww mic De wm To km- wish MW mam ’er lose t‘McluJiuC—z op 126,02ng ? (X) (b) Deéuéa Pubh'c STA:[(5 mum 7m 7m \Cc, \1w 4N5 Pmmdma (a) (X) Mo \{e’s ) «es [makes mum MW’E C \(ES \{ou ) No COMPETFA W A‘PAPWNT 0F :p‘dl‘ éNCj 5 ”To 943 ”Ms QRM) swims} (X) WES p edhi i two) s'f ’me Ml \toua 5M max“? M15 peoferiq owMaA b»! \{ou'f ( ) No ggw’w @' ammo; o? Pan {¢an 56 PETITI‘M‘EK STATE 0F 1,40% ) AFFIDIWIT Ss: arm.) WNW J heme, 4-757 I, ’ w unwesiaueé) WAT lo 'I, m1 2.. Is (5‘50 w upon! mp1 Mg MOT A S. PETITaom $033 MWMQRL M91 owns M )‘Ha iLLQBJ/Q, )3}!ka HILL .‘5 W1 TttDN 'SOb hyo'T iNsT Mlvu JT, cili h AT Mimi CachouA/L Sw‘ k)gw~lm 1W?) bMT mplngva ’ S $70ch bancls)cj4€ckfr\16/ 7 Receive WW b. 'P iTiou i )T‘N’c ”(\Ne M AT MIW'! o? CDKBEC'T/‘Ou COF—METR orfs MUWTWEA «99w cm—U‘ b g 11kg o’F TWST 5w ’Wg M&iw STATE VP :WAM’HL, PmM es uwA/m b [Qweoiug Wkedeg WPKGSQJTWWS INCL FuKTHEK ”RTEd: ‘E‘Tt‘M/E. NMA‘CE W5 om Memes WW? $53 D€PMTM€U1 I AST M&{MQ gumwevazg’nve p imwaa A955 MWM’T smug: Tum“ we! R( NA'S QOM DoN ioktS oM HCWMT o hj mks? éwat . “me manual To ?umm e; D0 H. ?eTTiOMEWQ ng 1 behave '1 Wfq Swmu 7R5 {Egg qoiug QIM PETITIOMER AM 1th 3a P zTiomaz $039 AM $15065“. INA ($290565 0F Inclamcy "M 44—19 Pow ”(TOMS 1C1; PmJVW/t Te ‘ w 13531 W7 0F béh’é AFFIANT swam , cww NoT. ' a AWIWTWKOS‘E» PHITIOMFK STATE 0F INDIMA, 3 oomw oP [Wm ) 53: AFFIDMIT {-' 56mm or:- ) I3 SWMAW beitxkéi w AMM SNUKU Mp0“ Wm WWW POST“ pe jw C~P own.) dgpos-e a, COMWCT oM R LIEP @rc’d'lws wmu SAM) 6x1 sT W 9F «Um .b‘A‘q p opwut m CpM‘CENTs Free CoWCTENWL MDMSSEJ ENVVtOPE mmmg MM (Jammie :5»! {misou pmsomwé. Mm AMA ?IKNT SiGNA‘CME SWORM To commissww €XPIB€33 MONT A w am Foam PosTAaé W5 Q know HR PMMPT esl‘dcs ANA WALNQ Subacrl mJ ‘DN‘ WW co awaa sufPr‘ciEMT ékkve/l pe 1 TH? Mpmm pLMIMG smwz IN TH€ MA'nliMcs mWJZEJ mbmmq) WWMIMI “(mam Mm ’nm WURM oz MA 5M “Mm 1 hm ”THAT 5 “Fawafmm Mgbw SW-W 10w Rmcsoiue APPIQWIT 0P Subscdbéé To “CM DiSHpmm hobo? Pgo‘s€ PeTiTl'ome, QC& qm * 4.1:: [wg e BO o ME W13 — EXHI51T~A SUPERIOR COURT OF LAKE COUNTY CRIMINAL DIVISION CAUSE 45602-9811-CF-00211J 45G02-9811-CF-00212 STATE 0F INDIANA Vvv SS: COUNTY 0F LAKE STATE 0F INDIANA, Plaintiff, ) ) ) v. ) ) JERMAINE DODD & ERIC FITZGERALD ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER 6-15-01 Both parties give closing arguments. Trial resumes. Court reads final instructions. State gives rebuttal. Bailiffs are sworn and take charge of the jury for 5:00 p.m. Jury signals a verdict. All deliberations. parties present. Verdict of guilty of murder as to both defendant is published by the Court. Pre-sentence investigation report is ordered returnable for Pending sentencing, the sentencing July 18, 2 d t th c tody of the Lake defendants are rem County Sherifi;/’<ZZZE??::L¢%5;1?ij mc SO ORDERED. _£ LARENCE D. MURRAY E ROOM II . ‘ EXHIBIT- 5 SUPERIOR COUR ) CRIMINAL DIVISION INDIANA )ss: COUNTY OF LAKE LAKE COUNTY . CROWN POINT, ) STATE OF INDIANA. ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) V ) CAUSE 45G02-981 1 -CF-00211 ) JERMAINE D'SHANN DODD, ) ) ~ Defendant. ) ORDER - 7I1 8/01 The State of Indiana appears by Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Susan Collins. The defendant, Jermaine D’Shann Dodd, appears in person and with his Attorney Patrick Young. Marianna Clark reporting. The defendant having been found guilty by a jury on the 15‘" Day of June, 2001, the court having entered judgment of conviction for the crime of Murder, a Felony. and having considered the written presentence investigation repor , now nds as follows: Mandatory Considerations: 1. 2. The the defendant will commit another crime is high because of his prior criminal history and propensity for violence. The nature and circumstances of the crime committed are as follows: The defendant shot and killed Jerome Thomas, a person unknown to him, from a moving car in what was essentially a “drive by” risk that killing. The defendant’s Three prior criminal record is as follows: As a juvenile: adjudications; Resisting Law Enforcement, Possession of (3) Marijuana and Fleeing Law Enforcement. In addition. a fully loaded handgun was found in the defendant’s locker while in high school. In a later unrelated case, defendant pled guilty to Carrying A Handgun Without a License, a Class (A) Misdemeanor, and was waived to Adult Court in that case. The defe‘ dant currently has another Murder charge pending in this court under cause #456020009-CF-00182 that was led while on instant case. 9 pretrial release in the The 4. defendant’s character is ruthless and dangerous. Mitigating Circumstances: The defendant was a juvenile 1. at the time he was charged with the instant offense. Aggravating Circumstances: - While on own recognizance release in the instant offense, the defendant ed the jurisdiction of this court and had to be extradited from California. The defendant has a history of criminal activity as previously stated. The defendant is in need of correctional and rehabilitative treatment that can best be provided by his commitment to a penal facility for the reason that his prior lenient treatment has had no deterrent 1. 2. 3. effect. The defendant used the element of surprise to effectuate the murder in that the victim was caught off guard and was shot at 4. ' 5. almost point blank range and thus had no opportunity to escape or otherwise defend himself. The killing was entirely senseless and unprovoked. SENTENCE: After considering the above factors the Court now nds that the and now sentences aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors. the defendant as follows: The defendant is now ordered committed to the custody of the Department of Correction for classi cation and con nement in a maximum security facility for a period of sixty (60) years. The sentence of imprisonment shall run consecutively to any sentence which may later be imposed in Cause No. 45G02-0009-CF-00182 for the reason that it is mandatory pursuant to LC. 36-50-1 -2(2). hundred ftythree (553) days credit toward the sentence of imprisonment for time spent In con nement as a result of this charge and the Court recommends that said time be considered as good time credit as provided by law. The Court also nds ve that the defendant shall be given: 59' JERIOIRN: D'SHANN Page 3 *w/ DODD The defendant shall pay court costs fee in the amount of One Hundred Twenty-Five Dollars ($125.00). The defendant has been advised of his rights of appeal and advised the court that he wishes to appeal and has insuf cient funds to hire his own lawyer. An Appellate Public Defender is appointed counsel at public expénse to represent the defendant in the direct appeal. is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Lake County the judgment of the court. of execution for The defendant The Clerk is directed to notify the Of ce of the Appellate Public Defender. Cause disposed. so ORDERED: i nlw ‘ ExHIBIT -~ 6L 45602-9811-CP-00211 State or Indiana Search Criteria Docket Entry Images Participant v. ll Donn, 'JERMAINB D'SHANN Begin Date End Date SortDesqending search Results Amt Owed/ Amt Dismissed Amt Owed] Amount Dismissed Docket Date Amounp Due e 9/14/2001 8/20/2001 8/17/2001 7/24/2001 Amt Dismissed Referenc Description f Sent Notice of Completion of Clerk's Record to Clerk 0f Supreme Court, and copy of Notice to Atty General Steven Carter & Appellate Division. [jt] Notified court reporter M Clark. [jt] 0.00 Appellate PD Nathaniel Ruff filed Of Appeal. 0.00 a Notice AOJ issued. 0.00 0.00 7/19/2001 SENTENCING ORDER ISSUED. 7/18/2001 Juzy Trial. 0.00 7/18/2001 Def apprs with‘Atty Patrick Young. State apprs by Susan Collins. Def sentenced to 60 years DOC. Cause disposed. [CDM/MC/NW/RJO] 0.00 6/18/2001 Remand issued. 0.00 6/15/2001 JT held. 7/18/01. 6/14/2001 JT held. 0.00 [TS/19] [rh/18] Def found guilty of Murder. [CDM/MC/RJO] 6/15/01. SH: 0.00 [CDM/MC/RJO] 0.00 6/13/2001" jt: HELD. 6/14/01. [CEM/MC/RJo] 0.00 6/12/2001 JT HELD. 6/13/01. [CDM/MC/NW/l2] 0.00 6/11/2001 Atty John Maksimovich filed Defendant's Motion In Limine and Request For Pretrial Hearing Concerning Admissibility of other Misconduct Evidence; Motion In Limine-Co-Defendant's Statement: Motion For Separation of State's Witnesses; and Motion to Preclude Improper Prosecutorial Argument. [jt] FE with Atty John Maksimovich and Atty Patrick Young. FE: 6/12/01. [CDM/MC/NW/ll] 0.00 Def apprs with Atty Patrick Young. State apprs by Mary Ryan. PTC is held. JT affirmed for 6/11/01. [CDM/Mc/Nw/Oll 0.00 ' 6/11/2001 6/1/2001 ' 0.00 Ex-HIbIT— 52: STATE OF INDIANA g COUNTY OF LAKE SUPERIOR COURT 0F LAKE COUNTY CRIMINAL DIVISION . CROWN POINT, INDIANA ) ) ss: ) STATE OF INDIANA, Plaintiff, V. vvvvvvvvv JERMAINE DODD CAUSE 45G02-9811-CF-00211 Defendant. ORDER 11-07798 ] The State of Indiana appears by Deputy Prosecuting Attorney J.C. Anderson, who files an information and probable cause jaffidavit. It is determined that there is probable cause to believe that the crime of murder, has been committed, and that Jermaine Dodd committed it. A warrant is ordered issued for the arrest of the defendant, who is to be held without bail. SO ORDERED: T. EDWARD PAGE, Magistrate [JL] EXHIng~c case 2:04-cv-00304-PPS-APR document 30-2 filed page 3 of 3 03/14/2007 r“... a F- fmaj INTHE COURT 0F APPEALS 0F NDIANA JERMAINE D. DODD, ) Appellant, 3 vs. g STATE OF INDIANA, g Appe ee. g CAUSE NO. 45A03-0108-CR-276 ORDER Comes now the Appellant, by counsel, and les herein his Veri ed Pe on for a Return of Case to Trial Court for the Taking of Additional Evidence to be Used on Appeal or for Filing a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, alleging thérein that‘this matter_ a. should be returned to the trial of ling court for the purpose Petition for Post- Conviction Relief to obtain additional evidence on the matters set out in said Petition; The Court having examined AND ORDERS Said Petition and being duly advised, that this appeal should be terminated and this now FINDS cause should be remanded nuu.‘ n to the Lake Superior Court, Criminal Division therein a Petition for Post-Conviction R.elief the same. Logal v. Cruse et a1., 2, for the and for that 368 N.E.2d 235 ‘ purpose of the Appellant ling court's plenary consideration (Ind. 1977); Davis v. State, 368 N.E.2d ‘ 7 114930;;(1. 1977); - The Clerk ofthis'Co'u is: dirccted’po send certi ed copies of this The Honorla.bl.e blérence D. Murmy Judge; Lake Su'periof Court,’ Criminal Division 2 Two a'e iment Center, 2293 N. Main Street Crown Pgint, LN 46307 v I order of to: case 2:04-CV—00304—PPS-APR document 30-2 led 03/1 4/2007 page 2 of 3 {L‘- .'.'.‘.'- .-. l. STATE OF INDIANA COUNTY OF LAKE ) SUPERIOR COURT OF LAKE COUNTY )ss: CRINIEIAL DIVISION ) CASE 45602-981 1-CF-0021 1 STATE OF INDIANA, Plaintiff, v. IERMAINE D'SHANN DODD, Defendant. 0 01-16-02 R issues an order terminating the defendant's direct appeal, case for the ling of a petition for postconviction relief. The directed to le a petition for postconviction relief on or before" The Court of Appeals and remanding defendant is this March 20, 2002. The clerk is directed to notify the defendant, Appellate Public Defender Nathaniel Ruff and Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Susan Collins. SO ORDERED: CLARENCE b. HUQQAY, Judge. (gas/23) EXH161T~'D STATE OF INDIANA _-R.O ‘15 i COUNTY OF LAKE COURT OF LAKE COUNTY -AL DIVISION, CROWN POINT 45G02- 0203- PC— 00003 CASE NO. ) NOV 0 1 2002 JERMAINE D’SHANN DODD, cgiax LAKE supemoa count Petltloner, vs. ) ) STATE OF INDIANA, ) ) Respondent. ) FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 11—01-02 After considering the evidence presented hearing on the petition for postand 0n the recommendation of the magistrate, the court enters the following ndings of fact and conclusions of law: conviction at the relief, Findings ofFact 1. On November 7, 1998, the petitioner was charged with the murder ofJerome Thomas. 2. The court appointed attorney Patrick Young to represent the petitioner attorney Nathaniel Ruff to represent the petitioner on direct appeal. 3. The State having submitted a summary of the evidence presented at trial in its preposed ndings of fact and conclusions of law, and the petitioner having offered n0 contrary facts in his proposed ndings and conclusions, the court now adopts, in pan, the State’s summary and nds that the evidence presented the following facts: On November 5, 1998, the petitioner and his step—brother, Eric became involved The petitioner drove his car slowly past a car in which Jerome Thomas and two friends were parked, listening t0 music. As the petitioner’s car passed, witnesses observed gunshots being red from two guns coming from the petitioner’s car. Jerome Thomas was shot in the abdomen and died a short time later in the petitioner’s car. as a result of his injuries. and at trial established in a dispute with Jerome Thomas. Following the dispute, the petitioner and Eric Fitzgerald le returning Fitzgerald, at trial ' The On petitioner did not testify at his jury trial. June 15, 2001, the jury convicted the petitioner of murder. The court sentenced the petitioner t0 sixty years. The petitioner initiated a direct appeal but later petitioned the appellate court to stay purposes of ling the instant petition for post-conviction relief. On January 16, 2002, the Court of Appeals granted the stay and remanded the case for litigation of this petition. that appeal for On March 6, 2002, the petitioner led a petition for post-conviction relief which raised several claims including assertions 0f assistance 0f counsel. claim that trial Of central trial court error and ineffective contention in the litigation of the petition was the counsel rendered ineffective assistance by advising the defendant not own defense at his jury trial. to testify in his On July 18, 2002, a hearing which the petitioner and documents: was held on trial the petition for post-conviction relief at counsel testi ed. Also presented were various a supplemental transcript of a hearing for severance of the co- defendants’ cases which was held on May 15, 2001 (PCR Exhibit 1); the clerk’s (PCR trial (PCR Exhibit 3); and nally, a proffer statement ofthe petitioner taken on January 2 1 2000 (PCR Exhibit 4). The petitioner later submitted record in petitioner’s cause Exhibit 2); a letter from the petitioner to his attorney dated April 16, 2001 , the record of proceedings from the jury trial for the court’s use in ruling on the petltlon. 10. At the post-conviction reliefhearing, the petitioner testi ed that trial counsel and he discussed whether he should testify on many occasions, both before and during trial. The him that if he testi ed, the State could impeach him with a pending murder charge. As he explained counsel’s advice the petitioner believes his attorney told impeachment could occur is because the petitioner own recognizance for one murder when he committed another. The petitioner said that the reason such was out on his petitioner testi ed that counsel told him that if he testi ed, evidence of his ight from the jurisdiction and subsequent extradition would be admissible. 11. At the post-conviction relief hearing, trial counsel also testi ed that he and the had numerous conversations concerning whether the petitioner should petitioner testify; that the choice was always the petitioner’s, but that ultimately, his client followed his advice. He told petitioner that things were going well, that the evidence pointed to the guilt of co-defendant Fitzgerald, and that to him. Young little or no evidence pointed testi ed that after Fitzgerald testi ed however, things began to apart. Fitzgerald’s testimony, painted the petitioner in a bad fall while non—credible vis-a-vis the physical evidence, light. Young was concerned that the petitioner not be able to articulate his version of the events in a manner that would 2 would make him Young appear credible. advised the petitioner that it was against his best interest to testify. 12. Young made clear that although he does not recall whether he told the petitioner that murder could be raised ifhe testi ed, he does not believe he would have been reduced to a conviction. (Record of the PCR Proceedings, p. 13) He was concerned however, that based on the relative skills of the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, the evidence that was introduced, the state of the proffer statement and Young’s assessment ofhis client, the petitioner would open the the pending said that because the case had not door t0 the pending murder charge 0n cross-examination. Conclusions ofLaw: 1. Petitions for post-conviction relief are quasi-civil in nature the burden of proving the claims raised therein and the petitioner bears by a preponderance of the evidence. A court ofreview judges the effectiveness oftrial counsel by the standard expressed Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064-65, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The question on review is whether counsel’s performance fell in Strickland v. below prevailing professional norms and ifso, whether the substandard performance prejudiced the petitioner. To prove the prejudice prong 0f this analysis, the petitioner must demonstrate that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding different.” Lambert supra. and State v. v. State, 743 N.E.2d 719, 730-31 Holmes, 728 N.E.2d164, 172 would have been (Ind. 2001), citing Strickland, (Ind. 2000). Counsel are presumed competent, and this presumption must be overcome by strong and convincing evidence. Martin v. State, 2001 275201 (Ind.App 2001), Howell WL v. 453 N.E.2d 241-43 (Ind. 1983), and Slaton v. State, 510 N.E.2d 1343, 1345 1987), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 921, 113 S.Ct. 337, 121 L.Ed.2d 254 (1992). State, (Ind. The petitioner claims that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance in advising him not to testify because he would be impeached with his prior record and the fact that he was charged with another homicide. In Indiana, a criminal defendant has the right t0 be heard, speaking on his or through counsel, pursuant t0 our state’s constitution. Ind. Const. Furthermore, an attorney after consultation Prof. Conduct is ethically constrained to abide by own behalf art. 1, §13. his client’s decision, with the attorney, concerning whether the client will testify. Rules 1.2(a) (1996). The petitioner does not claim that his attorney forbade him from testifying but rather, that the attorney misinformed him concerning the law which led the petitioner t0 decline testifying in his own defense. 3 However the petitioner may have understood counsel’s words, we conclude that trial counsel did not misinform the petitioner concerning the possibility ofthe State’s use of the pending murder charge. We further conclude that even if trial counsel had misstated the circumstances under which the petitioner’s pending murder charge could be raised before the jury, there is no evidence that petitioner’s decision to refrain from testifying prejudiced him. There is no evidence that had the petitioner testi ed, it would have bene tted his chances of acquittal. Indeed, a comparison of the evidence presented at trial and the proffer statement of the petitioner leads t0 a contrary conclusion. stated, the evidence introduced at trial As previously included the testimony of witnesses who saw gunshots being red from two guns coming from the petitioner’s statement, the petitioner testi ed, that Fitzgerald that 10. car. In his proffer was ring with one gun, not two, and he and Fitzgerald were the only occupants of the car at the time of the shooting. There is no evidence that counsel’s performance fell below prevailing professiona norms. 11. There is - no evidence that the petitioner was prejudiced by any act or omission of counsel. 12. We conclude that trial 13. Trial counsel counsel did not render ineffective assistance of counsel. was not questioned about any 0f the other claims raised in the petition for post—conviction reliefduring his direct examination at the hearing on the petition, nor did the petitioner address any other claims in his proposed ndings of fact and conclusions of law. We deem the remaining claims waived. Judgment: Based on the ndings of fact and the law relevant post-conviction relief ndings is denied. The clerk is to the issues raised, the petition for directed to forward copies of these Ruff and Deputy Prosecuting directed to return the Record of to the petitioner, appellate attorney Nathaniel Attomey Susan Collins. The clerk is further Proceedings to the Clerk of the Court 0f Appeals. The clerk is directed to show this case as disposed. S ..Recom. ended: /" NATAL’iE WA, Wm ARENCE D. MURRAY, Superior Court of Lake County Superior Court of Lake Count Criminal Division Criminal Division, 2293 North Main Street Crown Point, IN 46307-1 896 Telephone: (219) 755-3511 2293 North Main Street Crown Point, IN 46307-1896 Telephone: (219) 755—3500 Room 2 V EX H1 bIT- E. (31L13I{I( SUPREME COURT, COURT OF APPEALS, AND TAX COURT ESTEAUITE ()I?Z[DJI)I}&IQ}X 217 STATE HOUSE, INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204 317-232-1930 ° FAX 317-232-8365 David C. Lewis Clerk Cause Number 45A03-O409-SP-00443 Lower Court Number: 45G029811CF211 DODD, JERMAINE D. #112883 INDIANA STATE PRISON PO BOX 41 MICHIGAN CITY, IN 46361 DODD, JERMAINE D. You are hereby notified that -V- STATE OF INDIANA h“ “'*“‘“711/08/04 the COURT 0F APPEALS ISSUED THE ENCLOSED ORDER: WITNESS my name and the seal of said Court, day of this 8TH NOVEMBER , 2 0 04 ‘ Cleik, lhAZL Supreme C5111, Court of Kppeals and Tax Court IN THE L ? COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA K Wm x“ ,le' JERMAINE DODD, ) ‘ Leg” ” ‘ ‘ “ , (A ) Appellant, ) ) vs. CAUSE NO. 45AO3-0409-SP-443 ) ) STATE OF INDIANA, ) ) Appellee. ) ORDER The Petitioner, pro se, has led a Successive Petition for Post—Conviction Relief. Having reviewed the matter, the Court now nds establish a reasonable possibility that he is that the Petitioner has failed to entitled to post—conviction relief, and accordingly, the Court declines to authorize the ling of the Petition. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court is directed to retum the Petition to the Petitioner, together with a copy of this Order, and send a copy of this Order to the Clerk of the Superior Court of Lake County and to close ORDERED this _Z_ day of November, 2004. J5/ V Kirsch, C.J., Najam, J., and Hoffman, this docket. Sr.J., concur. V Chief Judge EXHIéIT—F CLERK SUPREME COURT, COURT 0F APPEALS, AND TAX COURT STATE OF INDIANA 217 STATE HOUSE, INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204 317-232-1930 ' FAX 317-232-8365 David C. Lewis Clerk Cause Number DODD, JERMAINE 45A03—0412—SP—00550 Lower Court Number: 45G029811CF211 #112883 INDIANA STATE PRISON PO BOX 41 MICHIGAN CITY, IN 46361 DODD, JERMAINE —V- STATE OF INDIANA YOU Ore t hEby notified "101 the COURT OF APPEALS ISSUED THE ENCLOSED ORDER: WITNESS my name and this 24TH day the seal of said this day Court, of JANUARY, hos on 2005 gm Clerk, Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court 1/24/05 IN THE ‘39 COURT 0F APPEALS 0F INDIANA 1‘ c: F \) 24,3 ' JERMAINE DODD, ) Petitioner, g vs. g STATE 0F INDLANA, CAUSE NO. 45AO3-0412-SP—550 g Respondent. g ORDER The Petitioner, pro And se, the Court, having has led a Successive Petition for Post-Conviction Relief. examined said Petition and being duly advised, now nds that the Petitioner has failed to establish a reasonable possibility that he is entitled to post-conviction relief, and accordingly, the Court declines to authorize the ling of the Petition. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court is directed to return the Petition to the Petitioner, together with a copy of this Order, and send a copy of this Order to the Clerk of the Lake Superior Court, and to close o? 7 ORDERED this _day ofJanumy, this docket. 2005 (j : Sullivan, Vaidik; J.J., Hof nan; Sr.J., concur. Chief Judge EXHIéIT—e UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION JERMAINE DODD, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) CAUSE NO. 2:04—CV-304 PS ) CECIL DAVIS ) ) ) Respondent. ) ORDER This case his is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion to hold in abeyance consideration of pending petition for writ of habeas corpus. This Motion was led on September 30, 2004, and Dodd led his petition for writ of habeas corpus on August At this time, Dodd’s 4, 2004. petition contains only a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, a claim that he has exhausted in the state courts. However, he also currently has pending before the Indiana state courts an application to proceed with a successive state court petition for post- conviction relief. He wants his petition for writ for his petition in the state courts are concluded. amend hjs petition for writ of habeas corpus stayed while the proceedings A er the state courts nish, he asks for leave to of habeas corpus to include the newly exhausted claims. The Supreme Court has spoken on issues that are germane to this case: pre-AEDPA decision in Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522, 102 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982), prescribed the dismissal of federal habeas corpus petitions containing unexhausted claims, in our post-AEDPA world there is no reason [A]1though the Court’s S.Ct. 1198, 71 why a district court should not retain jurisdiction over a meritorious claim and stay further proceedings pending the complete exhaustion every reason to do so when of state remedies. Indeed, there of simply is AEDPA gives a district court the alternative denying a petition containing unexhausted but nomneritorious claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2) (1994 ed., Supp. V), and when the failure to retain jurisdiction would 9; foreclose federal review of a meritorious claim because of the lapse of AEDPA's l-year limitations period. Duncan v. endorsed this J., concurring). The Seventh Circuit has approach by saying that when a petitioner has claims pending in both a state court unexhausted claims whose merits are unresolved) and the federal court (via a mixed (as to petition), what Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 183 (2001) (Stevens, it is to do.” appropriate for the court to stay the federal action until “the state court decides Freeman before the Court is v. Page, 208 F.3d 572, 577 (7th slightly different from Cir. 2000). this in form, in While the situation presently substance they are very similar. Dodd does not have any unexhausted claims in his petition for writ of habeas corpus, but he does have claims pending before the state courts that were not included in his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Given the presumption against piecemeal habeas proceedings, Clay F.2d 486, 488 (7th Cir. 1991), wait for the state courts to to notify the court leave to amend would be more appropriate Dodd’s motion to stay and GRANTS Dodd’s motion to stay [Docket No. 6], and directs when all of his claims have been exhausted. At that time, he his petition to re ect the results to include this cause to grant Bronnenberg, 950 act. Accordingly, the court Dodd it v. number on any The order to show cause of his state court proceedings. Dodd is is granted directed future lings with the Court. issued to the respondent is VACATED. SO ORDERED. ENTERED: October 28, 2004 s/ Phili P. Simon SIMON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT PHILIP P. EX HIBIT'H case 2:04-cv-00304-PPS-APR document 30—17 page 2 led 03/1 4/2007 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT 0F INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION JERMAINE DODD, ) ) Petitioner, ) NO. 2:04-CV-304 PS ) vs. ) ) STAN KNIGHT, ) ) Respondent. ) OPINION AND ORD Jermaine Dodd led a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 2001 Lake County conviction for murder. The Response to the order to show cause led by General of Indiana demonstrates the necessaly compliance with Lewis v. the Attorney Faulkner, 689 F.2d 100 (7th Cir. 1982). Petitioner led a traverse. For the following reasons, the Court denies As Petition in part. ruling ground for for the remaining on the matter until further as detailed l, 2002) [DE 9 Dodd’s murder trial at 16-19]. defer The state court were involved Id Indiana, 45G02-0203-PC-3 (Lake Superior Ct., found thax the evidence presented at 1. On November 5, in an altercation with Fitzgerald left after the dispute but then returned later in parked car in which Dodd and FACTS Dodd v. established these facts. brother, Eric Fitzgerald, appoint counsel to below come from the Indiana trial court’s opinion from the post- conviction petition in this matter. See Nov. we brie ng and oral argument have been completed. I. The facts relief, Dodd’s Thomas and two friends were 1998, Dodd and his Jerome Thomas. Dodd’s car. Id. listening to music. Id. at Petitioner Id. step- Dodd and Dodd drove past a As Dodd’s car drove case 2:04-cv-00304-PPS-APR past the paIked car, witnesses the document 30-17 saw two gS n shooting from Dodd’s abdomen and consequently died from his II. The procedural page 3 of 13 03/1 4/2007 filed 1d. car. Thomas was shot in injuries. Id. PROCEDURAL HISTORY history of this matter is rather convoluted, but a full description of it is necwsaly for the disposition of the matteps before the Court. At a tn'al by jury, Petitioner Dodd was convicted of murder on June during the Resp. Ex. See A [DE Dodd v. id.; Docket, Indiana tn'a]. 14]. The 15, 2001. 1d. at 2. v. Attorney Patrick Young represented Dodd, 45G02-981 l-CF-le (Lake Superior state court sentenced Dodd Indiana, 45602-0203-PC-3, at 2 to sixty years in prison [DE 9 Dodd Court), at 2, on July 19, 2001. Dodd, via appellate counsel at l6~19]. Nathaniel Ruff, led a direct appeal of his conviction on August 17, 2001. Docket, Indiana Dodd, 45602-981 1~CF~21 1, at 1, Resp. Ex. trial petition for post-conviction relief. Docket, B [DE 14]. l4]. On January Dodd v. 2002, The Indiana Court of Appeals granted Dodd’s requwt on for post-conviction relief on Id. March 6, 2002, arguing several issues, including ineffective assistance of trial counsel because counsel advised his own [DE 9 defense. at 16-19]; The trial see also at 16-19]. Dodd v. The Dodd not to testify in Indiana, 45602-0203-PC-3, at 2 (Lake Superior Ct. Nov. Dodd v. Indiana, Pet. for PCR, court held a hearing on July 18, 2002, where Nathaniel Ruff. [DE 9 Dodd v. Dodd sought A 03-108-CR-276 (Ind. Ct. Indiana, 45 January 16, and remanded the case to the Lake Superior Court. Dodd led a petition 9, court to take additional evidence for his appeal or for a permission to return his case to the App.), at 2, Resp. Ex. A [DE v. filed Mar. Dodd was 6, 2002 [DE l, 19-1 at 6-15]. represented by attorney Indiana, 45002-0203-PC—3, at 2, 4 (Lake Superior Ct. Nov. court denied Dodd’s petition on 2 November 2002) 1, 2002 1, 2002) after concluding that case 2:04-cv-00304-PPS—APR the trial that, counsel was not ine ‘ective for advising because tn'a] Indiana, 45G02-203-PC-3, at PC-557, at 8 (Ind. Ct. (Ind. Ct. App. June App. June Supreme Court on July Ex. D [DE l4]. (Ind. the tn'al Docket, C [DE tn'al. H [DE Dodd v. trial Dodd v. 14]. Indiana, No. Docket, l4]. Dodd’s that [DE habeas petition. Dodd meanwhile had 6].) counsel was not Indiana, 45 A05-21 l- Id. at 2. 2 2004. at12]. Dodd v. 790 a1 3, Resp. Indiana, on August all state 16, 2004 [DE 3]. court procedures. (Mot. to his request. petition for he had not raised (10/28/04 0rd. [DE 7].) already led in state court a post-conviction relief petition, alleging The Indiana Court of Appeals declined in the trial court, e 'ectively dismissing (Ind. Ct. State, Dodd v. Dodd wished to le a successive The Court granted Indiana, Successive Pet. for 45A03-409—SP—443 v. at 20]. he exhausted Speci cally, v. 10, 2003, the 45A05-21 1-PC-557, petition with this Court until Dodd to transfer to the Indiana ineffective assistance of his appellate/post7conviction counsel (Nathaniel 2’7, of 13 further found On June post-conviction relief for ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel that in his original It See also Dodd Dodd then led a petition August 28, 2003) [DE 9 at 1 18, 2002. court denied the petition on August 28, 2003. On October 4, he led a motion for a stay Abeyance nding 10, 2003), Resp. Ex. Dodd led a writ of habeas corpus Pet. in court’s not to tmtify during the 10, 2003). 10, 2003. The supreme 45A05-21 1-PC-557 Hold testify. Id. at l, 4. (Lake Superior CL), Resp. Ex. 1 when he advised Dodd N.E.2d 620 not to Dodd appealed on November Conn of Appeals af rmed ine ‘ective Dodd page 4 led 03/1 4/2007 counsel was not quwtioned about the other claims raised in Dodd’s Petition, those claims were waived. Id. Indiana document 30-17 App. Nov. PCR, led Sept. 27, 2004 [DE 19-1 at 16-DE 19~ to authorize the ling ofthe successive petition Dodd’s post-conviction claim. 8, Ru ), on September 2004) [DB 9 3 at 22]. Dodd v. He then led Indiana, No. another successive case 2:04-cv-00304—PPS-APR post-conviction relief petition on document 30-17 December 6, assistance of trial and post—conviction counsel. 2004 [DE l9~2 13-DE 19-3 at Dodd’s successive petition at 10]. The at 24]. 2004, alleging the same claims - ineffective Dodd v. Indiana, Successive PCR, led Dec. Dodd Dodd v. Indiana, No. 45A03-412-SP-550 (Ind Ct. attempted to exhaust state court procedures one time — he petitioned the Indiana Court of Appeals for a rehearing regarding its Dodd’s claim of ineffective assistance of tn’al and post-conviction counsel. Dodd v. led Feb. l7, 2005 [DE 19-3 Pet. for Rehrg., petition. Dodd v. On May Dodd Patrick Dodd 2254 Young was petiu'on, when he Indiana, [DE [DE 9 at 26]. 9] to this Court. advised First, he alleges that his Dodd not to testify trial during the jury counsel tn'a]. Second, claims that his post—conviction counsel Nathaniel Ruff was ineffective because he failed to raise or preserve several other errors Third, Dodd A. maintains that he made by is entitled Ineffective Assistance of Trial Dodd’s rst claim trial. dismissal of DISCUSSION Dodd raises three issues. ineffective last 11-19—4 at 15]. The appellate court denied the submitted an amended § 2254 petition III. In his § at Indiana, 45A03-412-SP-550 (Ind. Ct. App. April 26, 2005) 27, 2005, 6, appellate court again refused to authorize the ling of in state trial court. App. January 24, 2005) [DE 9 page 5 of 13 led 03/14/2007 Dodd claims that counsel, in Dodd’s post-convic on petition. to an evidential)! healing. Counsel is that his t al trial tn'al counsel inappropriately advised counsel inaccurately told him not to testify Dodd that ifhe testi ed, at the State could impeach him with a pending unrelated murder charge and evidence of his ight from the jurisdiction. 16-19]. Dodd v. Indiana, 45602-0203-PC-3, at 2 (Lake Superior Ct. Nov. Respondent argues that this claim should 4 1, 2002) [DE 9 be denied because the Indiana Court of at case 2:04-cv—00304-PPS-APR document 30-17 filed page 6 of 13 03/14/2007 Appeals “correctly and reasonably found that [Dodd] received the e ‘ective assistance of counsel” at his As provided by a federal court may Mem. (Resp. trial. at 4.) the Anti-Terrorism and E ‘ective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), not grant a petition for habeas corpus based on any claim adjudicated in state court proceedings “unless the adjudication of the claim (l) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly atablished Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination ofthe State court proceeding.” facts in light 28 U.S.C. §2254(d). “‘Contrary ofthe evidence presented in the to’ means that a federal court may grant the writ only if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite that reached by the Conn on a question of law, on a set 2005) or if the state coun decides a case of materially indistinguishable facts.” Woods (citing Williams In Strickland v. ine ‘ective assistance v. Taylor, v. 529 U.S. 362, 405-06 differently than the is To to Cir. (2000)). Washington, the Supreme Court determined that a party claiming of counsel must demonstrate deferentia]; counsel is manner. See Supreme Court McBride, 430 F.3d 813, 816 (7th that the alleged acts or omissions of counsel were not the product of “reasonable professional judgment.” 466 U.S. 668, 690 standard Supreme (1 984). This presumed to have acted in a reasonable and professional id. decide Dodd’s claim, the Indiana Court of Appeals applied the familiar two-part test detem ne ineffectiveness. [t]o As the court noted, succeed before the fact nder on hjs claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Dodd needed the evidence not only that his 5 trial to prove by a preponderance of counsel’s representation fell case 2:04—cv-00304-PPS-APR document 30-17 page 7 of 13 led 03/1 4/2007 below an objective standard of reasonableness, but also that his counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive him of a fair trial because of a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result would have been di ‘erent. Dodd v. Indiana, 45A05-21 l-PC-557, at 3-4 (citing Stevens 2002)), Resp. Ex. H [DE 14]. The Court of Appeals v. State, 770 N.E.2d 739, 746 (Ind then correctly noted that “[i]solated mistakes, poor strategy, inexperience, and instances of bad judgment do not necessarily render representation ineffective.” 1d at 4 (citing Stevens, 770 N.E.2d at 746). Using thwe standards, the Indiana appeals court reviewed Dodd’s claim. appellate court found that the trial court’s ndings of fact The tn'al court held a hearing at which testi ed that Dodd and his on many occasions he and his_ trial were not murder Dodd at issue when he committed that, if he testi ed, would be admissible. For his counsel testi ed. the trial Dodd He lawyer discussed whether he should twtify. Id Dodd was the other crime. released on his own Id Moreover, trial impeach him with a recognizance for the counsel allegedly told evidence of his ight from the jurisdiction and following extradition counsel stated that he had numerous conversations with part, tn'al Dodd followed Id. at 5. at 7. Id. whether or not he should end, Id clearly erroneous. further stated that his counsel said that, if Dodd testi ed, the State could unrelated pending murder chaxge because First, the testify, Dodd but that ultimately the choice was always Dodd’s. Id. counsel’s advice not to testify. 1d. Counsel testi ed that he told was going well for Dodd defendant’s testimony painted until the testimony from Dodd’s co-defendant. Dodd in a bad light. not to testify because he was concemed that Id. Nevertheless, counsel Dodd would be unable to Id. still about In the Dodd that His co- advised Dodd articulate his version of case 2:04-cv-00304-PPS—APR document 30-17 page 8 of 13 led 03/14/2007 the events in a credible manner. Id. Trial counsel further testi ed that, although he didn’t recall telling Dodd that the pending murder charge could be raised if he testi ed, did so because that chaIge had not been reduced to a conviction. Id. counsel was concerned that examination. Dodd would open the door to counsel “did not misinform tn'al was no evidence or that Dodd was 0203-PC-3, The at if Dodd 4 [DE 9 on cross- appellate court found that there ineffective assistance found that circumstances under which the pending had testi ed.” 1d. at 6-7. Thus, it decided that below prevailing professional norms, Dodd v. Indiana, 45602- at 16-19]. court’s factual ndings, held that m'a] counsel, the state court prejudiced by any act or omission of trial counsel. trial was suf cient evidence, court’s holding that Indiana, 45A05-21 1-PC-557, at The the pending murder charge that trial counsel’s performance fell contraty, to support the Dodd v. ofDodd and his Dodd about the murder charge could have been raised there to the point, tn'al Id. After listening to the testimony the More he didn’t believe he 7, and af rmed the of counsel. trial Resp. Ex. trial despite evidence also to the counsel did not erroneously advise Dodd. H [DE 14]. It therefore court’s decision that trial accepted the trial counsel did not render Id. at 7. appellate court also raised a second basis for a 'lrming the state court decision. trial counsel’s advice that Dodd not testify was a strategic decision. 1d. stated: [Trial counsel] explained that he did not believe articulate his version ofthe events in Dodd would be able to a credible manner and that he was concerned Dodd would open the door for the State to be able to use the pending murder chaIge. Regardlass of whether he actually misinformed Dodd about the ability of the State to use the pending charge if Dodd 7 The court It document 30-17 case 2:04—cv-00304-PPS—APR testi ed, the other issues [trial counsel] cited in determining Id. a whether The court thus refused trial to v. State, was advisable condemn strategy that, at the time Whitener it counsel fall (Ind. 1998). below the Dodd to testify. who “should be given best.” Id. at 7-8 (citing Because the court of appeals found that address the second prong of the ineffective assistance of counsel test This Court, when reviewing assistance claim, “must factual presume that all deference in choosing obj ective standard of reasonableness, counsel’s performance prejudiced Dodd. Id. at page 9 of 13 03/14/2007 were proper considerations and under the circumstances, seems 696 N.E.2d 40, 42 Dodd’s representation didn’t trial for filed — whether it did not or not trial 8. ndings in a state adj udication of an ineffective factual determinations made by the state courts, including credibility determinations, are correct, unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.” Murrell omitted). v. Frank, 332 F.3d 1102, 1112 (7th Cir. 2003) (citation and emphasis Dodd has not presented any such court’s ndings of fact. Through evidence to refute the court’s or the appellate We therefore accept the state courts’ ndings as true. this lens, we must nd that the Indiana Court of Appeals’ contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, federal law. appropriate level of deference to the decisions applied the “reasonable professional judgmen The made by Dodd’s ” decision was not state appellate court 11'ia1 gave the counsel, and properly standard. Accordingly, the claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel does not present an appropriate B. trial ground for habeas relief. Ineffective Assistance of AppellatelPost-Conviction Counsel Dodd’s second claim is more troubling. In general, Dodd is complaining performance of his appellate counsel, Nathaniel Ruff. To put it about the bluntly, the record that was . case 2:04—cv-00304-PPS-APR provided to the Court in this case deciphering it. What was later would choose murky at best, Dodd Dodd of 13 we cannot be certain, is that Ruff was Ruff then led a notice of appeal but the in his direct appeal. dismissed so that page 1O 03/1 4/2007 filed and Respondent has not assisted the Court in appears to have happened, although appointed to represent appeal is document 30-17 could le a PCR instead. not at It is to jettison a direct appeal to immediately proceed to a all clear why Ruff No answer is readily PCR. apparent from the record. 1n any event, Respondent concedes that, after losing in the uial court on his at 6. PCR, Dodd “had a joint In thatjoint appeal, direct appeal and post-conviction relief proceeding.” Resp. Mem Ruff only raised one issue — the ineffectiveness of trial counsel Patrick Young. Respondent argues that Dodd’s claim of Ru "s ine ‘ective is not cognizable on federal habeas review because ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel federal constitutional violation. 1212 (7th Cir. (Resp. I996) for this principle. Id PCR counsel at 6. would be Both Dodd’s as available claims Ruff should have at 4-5] made and his traverse that “[w]hile claims trial — of on habeas review[, Dodd] does not (Pet. (161.) Request to Traverse at as direct appeal claims. In particular, involving several aspects of the this conceded by Respondent, Ruff served Petition Notifying Readiness with and Appoint Counsel [DE 10 a cognizable However, the application of that case to any claims comsel should have made as direct appeal claims.” isn’t the case. itself Steward v. Gilmore, 80 F.3d 1205, and direct appellate counsel. Respondent argues appellate counsel’s ine 'ectiveness identify at 5-6.) It cites As mentioned and situation is not so straight—forward. as both Mem not is But this simply Amend Habeas Corpus 4 [DB 18]) specify which Dodd alleges trial errors including joinder with the accomplice during tn'al, improper or insufficient jmy instructions, the introduction of his co—defendant’s statement, and 9 case 2:04-cv-00304-PPS—APR document 30-17 - that possibly should have been other claims filed page 11 of 13 03/14/2007 raised by his appellate lawyer, but were not. Thus, while Respondent admits that claims of appellate counsel’s ineffectiveness generally would be available for review before this Court, here. (Id) It may he then fails to were not cognizable and made a professional judgment not to pursue them. But we cannot assume In sum, Respondent’s of appellate counsel Memorandum insuf cient because is appellate counsel Ruff. This case needs that in a moment) Dodd received this Order). is directed to The amended Any thaI to be the case. in response to it Dodd’s claim of ine ‘ective assistance does not address the alleged ineffectiveness of a esh start. amend the habeas Newly appointed counsel petition ineffective assistance of appellate counsel (or then ordered to le an 15, 2007. unavailable well be that Dodd’s appellate lawyer reasonably determined, for whatever reason, that these potential appellate claims 0n why such a claim is explain amended response addressing traverse by Dodd will then be due no Dodd (more and focus the claim on whether any other claims not disposed of in be led on or before March petition should for 15, 2007. the speci c issues raised by later than May 15, 2007. Respondent Dodd by is April The Court will review the lings, and set this matter for oral argument therea er. C. Request for Evidentiary Hearing Dodd because he matter, and is argues that he is entitled to an evidential}! hearing either in federal or state court “not being o ‘ered any fair or meaningful [way] to prepare or defend himself in this this is the reason that Mr. hearing and counsel, if possible.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Dodd [DE 10 at should be a orded an amendment, evidentiary 1| 11]. (e)(2) states: If the applicant has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State court 10 case 2:04-Cv-00304-PPS-APR document 30-17 page 12 03/1 4/2007 filed 0f 13 proceedings, the court shall not hold an evidentiary hearing on the claim unless the applicant shows that- (A) the claim relies on— a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to casw on (i) collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or (ii) a factual predicate that could not have been previously discovered through the exercise of due diligence; and (B) the facts underlying the claim would be suf cient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that but for constitutional error, no reasonable fact nder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense. At this point in the case, Dodd has not ful lled one of the reasons required by the Therefore, at this time, Dodd’s requast for an evidentiary hearing D. is statute. denied. Appointment of Counsel Dodd led a Moti on Court vacate its to Alter or earlier ruling le to the discretion of the denying Amend [DE 21] Dodd distn'ct court. requesting, among other things, that this appointment of counsel. Appointment of counsel See Winsett v. Washington, 130 F.3d 269, 281 (7th 1997) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B)). The Court, a er review of the case record, convinced that Dodd’s claim of ineffective assistance of appellate c0unsel complex to require counsel. Accordingly, this Court now vacates Defendant’s Motion to Alter or Amend, such thaI Petitioner Golden, Esq. at Kirkland is its Amend is denied. 11 Cir. now suf ciently previous ruling and grants now appointed counsel. James & Ellis LLP is appointed pro bono counsel. Dodd’s Motion to Alter or is is is Any other relief sought by case 2:04-cv-00304-PPS-APR document 30-17 1v. filed 03/1 4/2007 page 13 of CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Court: of ine ‘ective assistance of trial counsel; (1) DISMISSES (2) DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Petitioner’s claim Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary healing; (3) ORDERS Petitioner to amend his habeas petition by March Petitioner’s claim of by this 2007 regarding of ine ’ective assistance of appellate counsel (or any other issues not disposed Order) and ORDERS Respondent to respond to the amended petition by April 2007; any traverse will be due from Petitioner by (4) 15, May 15, 15, 2007; GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion to Alter or Amend [DE 21] as it relates to his request for appointment of counsel; and accordingly, James Golden, Esq. of Kirkland & Ellis LLP is appointed as pro bono counsel; and, (5) DENIES Petitioner’s Motion to Alter or Amend [DE 21] such that it relates to other relief sought by Petitioner. SO ORDERED. ENTERED: January 5, 2007 s/ Phili P. Simon SIMON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT PHILIP 12 P. any 13 EXHIBIT? I Supreme Court of the United States Office of the Clerk Washington, DC 20543-0001 William K. Suter Clerk of the Court (202) 479.3011 April 1 2009 Mr. Jermaine D. Dodd Prisoner ID # 112883 P.C.F., J-15-1F 4490 W. Reformatory Road Pendleton, IN 46064-9001 Re: Jermaine D'Shann Dodd Indiana No. 08-9554 v. Dear Mr. Dodd: The petition for a writ of certiorari in the above entitled case was led on March 5, 2009 and placed on the docket April 1, 2009 as No. 08-9554. A form is enclosed for notifying o posing counsel that the case was docketed. Sincerely, William K. Suter, Clerk by! Melissa Zw Walk B lock Case Analyst Enclosures CO EXHIBIT“ 3’ CLERK SUPREDIE COURT, COURT OF APPEALS, AND TAX COURT STATE OF INDIANA 217 STATE HOUSE, INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204 317-232-1930 ° FAX 317-232-8365 David C. Lewis Clerk Cause Number DODD, JERMAINE 45A03—O412-SP—00550 Lower Court Number: 45G029811CF211 #112883 PENDLETON CORR FAC PO BOX 30 PENDLETON, IN 46064 DODD, JERMAINE ~V- STATE OF INDIANA You ore hereby notified that the COURT OF APPEALS ISSUED THE ENCLOSED ORDER: WITNESS my name and day this T the seal of said hos on [hi5 do), Court, of APRIL, 2005 Cle?k, M Supreme C&Et, Court ofxppeals and Tax Court 4/26/05 ‘ ' IN THE F3. .~ f L": ' ql éf‘: I COURT 0F APPEALS 0F INDIANA APR 26 2am ‘5 JERMAINE DODD, § ) ) Appellant, ) ) vs. ) CAUSE N0. 45A03-0412-SP—550 ) STATE 0F INDIANA, ) ) Appellee. ) O Comes now his petition, E tn pa the Appellant, by counsel, and les herein Petition for Rehearing. In Appellant asks this Court to reverse the January 24, 2005 denial of Appellant's successive post—conviction relief petition led The Court having examined this on December matter, and being duly advised, 6, 2004. now FINDS AND ORDERS that Appellant's Petition for Rehearing is DENIED. gt ORDERED this Qé‘jéday of April, 2005. ” L/ Darden, Barnes; J.J., Hof nan; Sr.J., concur. . (x ~J. f? . _?£-'.é."-..~..-r- ChiefJudge ‘. EXHIBIT“- K KIRKLAND 8. ELLIS LLP AND AFFILIATED PARTNERSHIPS 200 East Randolph Drive Chicago, Illinois 60601 James M. Golden To Call Write: Directly: 312 469-7021 312 861-2000 Facsimile: ‘ 312 846-91 36 www.kirkland.com jagolden@kirkland.com October 8, 2008 Jermaine Dodd #1 12883 Pendleton Correctional Facility P.O. Box 3% Pendleton, IN 46064 Dear Jennaine: Attached for your records is the Indiana Court of Appeals‘ October 8, 2008 Opinion. Unfortunately, the Court denied the appeal and upheld your conviction. This petition The next step would be ling a petition for transfer t0_the Indiana Supreme Court. Opiniov’f'f m'm‘“? M&Appeals. asks the Supreme Court t0 review the wmmex there 3r? grof‘ms f0 ““3 SUCh a days. from the date of lc'thxz Petiuona uetition t0 transfer. If we decide to some Please.<:lontact~me Ilme the week of -— ‘t’hc November 7, 200$. Court of Appeals' Uplmon We are currently reviewing the Opinion to detetjr?“'-‘f 1t peiltlpn ano any other next steps. Ifwe should pursue lmg a 1t once W6 have completed t o dl’SClISS you with a draft. will come meet October 13 to discuss whether decide to le a petition, 1 WOUId be due thmF we i . ~«——~«// '- \I' truly \ THC. ‘ - . ‘ Jamms’ M. ~ \ LJ/m Very .‘I‘ ~‘v""-"“"S, Golden \ a L08 An (Q n (D New York San Francisco Washington, 0.0. R‘ EXHI lT‘L CLERK SI'PREME COURT, (:m'R'r 0F APPEALS, AND '1‘.“ C(u'RT STATE OF INDIANA v Kevin S. L17 STATE HOUSE, 317-232-1930 Smith l.\‘l)L’m\'.A\1’()I.Is, ° Eu l.\' 4636M; LIUUU [£333 m_rJ \r} V. “=23 ‘ 317-232-8365 Clerk Cause Number JAMES GOLDEN 200 EAST RANDOLPH DRIVE CHICAGO, IL 45A03-0802-CR-00087 Lower Court Number: 45G020203PC3+ 60601-6636 DODD, JERMAINE D'SHANN -V- STATE OF INDIANA You ore hereby notified Ihot the hos on this day SUPREME COURT 12/11/08 THIS MATTER HAS COME BEFORE THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT ON A PETITION TO TRANSFER JURISDICTION FOLLOWING THE ISSUANCE OF A DECISION BY”THE COURT OF APPEALS. THE PETITION WAS FILED PURSUANT TO APPELLATE RULE 57. THE COURT HAS REVIEWED THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS. ANY RECORD ON APPEAL THAT WAS SUBMITTED HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO THE COURT FOR REVIEW, ALONG WITH ANY AND ALL BRIEFS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN FILED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS AND ALL THE MATERIALS FILED IN CONNECTION WITH THE REQUEST TO TRANSFER JURISDICTION. EACH PARTICIPATING MEMBER OF THE COURT HAS VOTED ON THE PETITION. EACH PARTICIPATING MEMBER HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOICE THAT JUSTICE'S VIEWS ON THE CASE IN CONFERENCE WITH THE OTHER JUSTICES. BEING DULY ADVISED, THE COURT NOW DENIES THE APPELLANT'S PETITION T0 TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION. RANDALL T. SHEPARD, CHIEF JUSTICE ALL JUSTICES CONCUR. KJ .5— q WITNESS my name 0nd day this 11TH the seal of said Court, of DECEMBER, 2008 WM Clerk. " Supreme Court. Court 0f Appeals and Tux (‘nurl I THE “IN INDIANA CouaT oP CMSE APPEALS f HO. JEKMMNE DODD) Lowek CowaT VJ PEUTIONER, cwse No; #Saoa-qsu—cc-oo;m Va 1kg INDI/(MA) o4: 3TATE N“M‘( KGSPoMcLau‘T, Passe ‘er Pe’f ’zome do€S-N6T wfs‘rx In Meow EM’Cea Claim, 3 h@{ephokkei (Ea) GI) ‘TtU-S Hill N(A' MMMlDEZ.’ ?@(Sf STA, pETTWEK ’[tu‘s Afr 2 NOW TIME, THE @Howirde', uzsea Dom; JNum- Liam ?AX’ — NZA FWLA‘lL/L Nzl‘l a ”Saog’oi ll’ CF" 099“ Pg—TFYTUALEK ”Ms Pai omaa (LQME'S fao‘se. ”Me PeTi’lTordew— D0439 D. Suqu kSSiSTWCF 0? Cavwsgl 24(5), J3, > )ZJE 2,1LCJ5 CZ'IMQMM 5058 WesT 860 SouTk 5mm D. APPeWcE op Appawwce Lu‘s ’[T/w kM/e "To (Q NW? QGWKIALE CZ) C‘ng :udhwg Ire “Ta wTU/x ADOKES-S'. 5mm P mxouea‘s Rasmm’r ummw pron. VVVVQ CJW'MOT ACCEPT dsgs MoT IZECQWKE WW SaV'CI/Eg Etga—(Komg‘C/pnfl gmvicés <7? W :P—Muh mm, DEQM)RT dws m, \NHEEEFOKED Pe'l/i/HOMEK cousim gmh W QKWW APPWCE WA Moms“; op To To QESPECTQJLK SubMTVTeA ‘Hixis WW KEQKLESTS «Ada ; 01W 052036 3&1'A, CWa—T PamoM/aes 7:; &CCEP/r €Mw MOTLIOM, 9C . pé”, $0.151, __ D y 94/,wa ZLoQ/Q <1) W iom \o/Zv/Se 01C 0F Segue; VCER‘r’IFiCAW I) o? 71561;“ AM Coma EM’M 01': :1, MW Mama 43a ,oKo/vsz 0P wolmmm, 217 3mg s‘mz VP Afpms, {/WQOL/ j:N,J/;/f7\[,qy [37 Hm} m JWWW Amiw P if wx '1, - I I - {W56 . 0pm; m w; MA Jim 7w 3wom Above “(2) 599,45 37m 4M ml>203gn id” OD cwmam MO MT Mv/e/J MM‘L' 7 ) gubxmgé; W W51 pMC/e kae A Rm Pammm 49/1036 5 INdI‘M/A7tléq/Ll— sb/0)n‘52 ma: aim CouNT Arm; SMPPr'C/JENT aJ/WAC MIMI Cw $\ICL‘WM’p0lI‘S > w A’MTHOEl'gJ (1.0M) 70 76¢ SEMEJ pr’fme 492% C/m FosffAde Affirm; P fsw pEI’JONMA/No'fmlf/WZP/oyw 9p gage; W637 ease 3‘»th @ci/ia/ ) 3mm. HM) Zo , i Whig: ”(RH ON 5 AprmQ/wc/é M [mam WTEFY «@960:qu 0? 15w com [\AML'ING; w wuémzsigualw 'an D mum 4‘1 or apiees: \ilW imam. Wm: M6 Makex‘ A 3 CWW QM 74MB )

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.