United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Oxford Division
NEAL B. BIGGERS, Senior District Judge.
This matter comes before the court on the pro se petition of Hugh Roger Dale Green for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The State has responded to the petition; Green has not replied, and the deadline to do so has expired. The matter is ripe for resolution. For the reasons set forth below, the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus will be denied.
Facts and Procedural Posture
Hugh Roger Dale Green is in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections and is currently housed at the East Mississippi Correctional Facility in Meridian, Mississippi. He was convicted in the Circuit Court of Tippah County, Mississippi, on two counts of sexual battery and two counts of touching a child for lustful purposes. State Court Record ("SCR"), Vol. 1, pp. 70-73. Green was sentenced to serve a term of life on each count of sexual battery and a term of fifteen years on each count of touching a child for lustful purposes, all to be served consecutively in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. SCR, Vol. 1, pp. 74-75.
Green appealed his convictions to the Mississippi Supreme Court, raising the following grounds for relief (as stated by Green through counsel):
Issue One: Was extrinsic evidence of prior alleged misconduct more prejudicial than probative under M.R.E. 403 and 404(b)?
Issue Two: Was the tender-years exception of Miss.R.Evid. 803(25) properly applied?
Issue Three: Whether the trial court wrongfully excluded the defense evidence?
Issue Four: Was the verdict contrary to the weight of the evidence?
The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed Green's convictions. Green v. State, 89 So.3d 543 (Miss. 2012) (Cause No. 2009-KA-01373-SCT).
Green then sought permission from the Mississippi Supreme Court to seek post-conviction collateral relief in the trial court, raising the following grounds for relief (as stated by Green pro se ):
1. Was extrinsic evidence of prior alleged misconduct more prejudicial than probative under M.R.E. 403 and 404(b)?
2. Was the tender-years exception of Miss. R. Evid. 803(25) properly applied?
3. Whether the trial court wrongfully excluded ...