Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

Thompson v. Bell, No. 06-5744

By FindLaw Staff on September 11, 2009 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

In habeas proceedings arising from petitioner's capital murder conviction, district court's denial of relief is affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded where: 1) district court's denial of defendant's Rule 60(b) motion is reversed and remanded with instructions for the district court to first rule on the merits of defendant's remaining ineffective assistance claims, while only addressing the incompetency question if it rejects the ineffective assistance claims on the merits; 2) the case is remanded to conduct defendant's incompetency hearing and decide the merits of his incompetency claim de novo because the Tennessee courts unreasonably applied federal law clearly established by Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986); and 3) district court's dismissal of defendant's chemical competency claim is affirmed without prejudice to defendant raising a chemical competency claim in the future should he be forcibly medicated.      

Read Thompson v. Bell, No. 06-5744

Appellate Information

Argued:October 30,2008

Decided and Filed: September 11, 2009


Opinion by Judge Clay 

Dissent by Suhrheinrich


For Appellant:

Dana Hansen Chavis, Federal Defender Services of Eastern Tennessee, Inc.

For Appellee:

Jennifer Lynn Smith, Office of the Tennessee Attorney General

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard