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
Judges
Opinion by Judge Clay
Dissent by Suhrheinrich
Counsel
For Appellant:
Dana Hansen Chavis, Federal Defender Services of Eastern Tennessee, Inc.
For Appellee:
Jennifer Lynn Smith, Office of the Tennessee Attorney General