Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Moore v. Warden

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division

March 21, 2018

ANTHONY D. MOORE, Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN [1], Respondent.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          JON E. DEGUILIO JUDGE.

         Anthony D. Moore, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his murder conviction and 55 year sentence imposed by the Lake County Superior Court on May 17, 2011, under cause number 45G-02-0910-MR-8. ECF 1.

         I. BACKGROUND

         In deciding the petition, the court must presume the facts set forth by the state courts are correct unless they are rebutted with clear and convincing evidence. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). Here, Moore does not dispute the Court of Appeals of Indiana's summary of the evidence presented at trial:

On October 16, 2009, Dorelle-Moore returned to his Gary, Indiana residence and discovered that it had been burglarized. He contacted his girlfriend, Carla Dawson (“Dawson”), who came home from work and called the Gary Police Department.
Dorelle-Moore began to voice his suspicions that Isaiah Claxton (“Claxton”), Bernard Hamilton (“Hamilton”), and Chris Martin (“Martin”) were the burglars. He went to the home of Martin's cousin, making an offer that “everything will go away” if Martin and his companions would return the stolen items. Dorelle-Moore went back home to wait for the police to arrive, and Claxton came to the residence to buy marijuana.
Claxton waited on the living room sofa while Dorelle-Moore paced back and forth, in and out of the residence, talking with some men on the porch, and becoming more and more agitated. At one point, Claxton attempted to leave but Dorelle-Moore's friend asserted that this made Claxton “look guilty.” Dorelle-Moore went into another room, talked with a friend, and returned with a gun. He then fired nine shots into Claxton, saying “over kill, bitch.” Claxton's sister and friend were attempting to reach Dorelle-Moore on his cell phone when they overheard shots. Dorelle-Moore answered the cell phone and said, “This bitch ass ___ want to steal from me. Now he laying down.” Dorelle-Moore went outside, still holding his weapon and left his vehicle. Claxton died in the doorway of Dorelle-Moore's home.
Later that morning, Dorelle-Moore's stepfather contacted police to arrange for Dorelle-Moore's surrender. He was charged with murder, and his jury trial commenced on March 14, 2011. At the conclusion of trial, Dorelle-Moore was found guilty as charged. He was sentenced to fifty-five years imprisonment.

Moore v. State, No. 45A04-1109-CR-482, slip op. at *2-3 (Ind.Ct.App. May 25, 2012); ECF 4-6.

         Moore appealed and on May 25, 2012, the Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed his conviction and sentence. Id. Moore did not petition for transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court. ECF 1 at 1; ECF 4-2. On February 11, 2013, More filed a petition for post-conviction relief. ECF 4-1 at 11; PCR App. 10-38. On November 20, 2014, the post-conviction court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law denying his petition. PCR App. 86-92. Moore appealed, but on April 30, 2015, the Court of Appeals affirmed the post conviction court. ECF 4-7; 4-8; 4-11. Moore petitioned the Indiana Supreme Court, but on July 23, 2015, the Court denied transfer. ECF 4-12; 4-13; 4-14.

         On May 6, 2016, Lockett signed and placed in the prison mailing system his petition for writ of habeas corpus. ECF 1 at 6.

         II. STANDARD FOR HABEAS REVIEW

         “Federal habeas review . . . exists as a guard against extreme malfunctions in the state criminal justice systems, not a substitute for ordinary error correction through appeal.” Woods v. Donald, 135 S.Ct. 1372, 1376 (2015) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

         An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim-

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established 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 of the facts in light of the evidence presented ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.