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.

Page v. Outlaw

United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Eastern Division

February 21, 2018

ANTONIO PAGE
v.
TIMOTHY OUTLAW and STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

          ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE. ETC.

          KEITH STARRETT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This cause is before the Court on Petition of Antonio Page pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 [1], Respondents' Motion to Dismiss pursuant to 2244(d) [10], the Report and Recommendation entered by Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo [12], and the Objections thereto [16] filed by Petitioner, and the Court considering same does hereby find as follows:

         1. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         Petitioner Antonio Page is an inmate currently in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections ("MDOC"), housed at the Mississippi State Penitentiary in Parchman, Mississippi. Following a jury trial, Page was convicted of murder in the Circuit Court of Forrest County, Mississippi and sentenced, on January 30, 2007, to a term of life without parole in the custody of MDOC. Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. A (ECF No. 6-1, at 1-3). The Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed Page's conviction and sentence on April 15, 2008, and denied his petition for rehearing on August 5, 2008. See Page v. State, 2007-KA-00334-COA, 987 So.2d 1035 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008), Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. B (ECF No. 6-2). Page did not file a petition for writ of certiorari seeking discretionary review before the Mississippi Supreme Court.

         Page thereafter filed an application for post-conviction relief, which Page dated June 23, 2011 and the Mississippi Supreme Court received on June 27, 2011. See Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. C (ECF No. 6-3). The Mississippi Supreme Court denied Page's application on August 23, 2011, finding that his "claim of ineffective assistance of counsel d[id] not meet the standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)." Page v. State, 2011-M-00899-SCT (Miss. Aug. 23, 2011), Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. D (ECF No. 6-4, at 1). Page filed a motion for rehearing on his application for post-conviction relief, which the court denied as not authorized under Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(h). Page v. State, 2011-M-00899-SCT (Miss. Sept. 13, 2011); Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. E (ECF No. 6-5).

         Page filed a second application for post-conviction relief, which he dated January 8, 2016 and the Mississippi Supreme Court received on January 15, 2016. See Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. F (ECF No. 6-6). The court denied this second application as "barred by time and as a successive application, which does not meet any of the exceptions thereto." Page v. State, 2011-M-00899-SCT (Miss. Mar. 16, 2016), Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. G (ECF No. 6-7, at 1). Page twice moved reconsideration of this denial, and these motions were denied on May 27, 2016 and February 3, 2017, respectively. Page v. State, 2011-M-00899-SCT (Miss. May 27, 2016), Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. H (ECF No. 6-8); Page v. State, 2011-M-00899-SCT (Miss. Feb. 3, 2017), Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. I (ECF No. 6-9).

         On March 23, 2017, Page filed the instant Petition (ECF No. 1) for Writ of Habeas Corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His Petition raises seven grounds for post-conviction relief.

         Ground One: Petitioner was provided with ineffective assistance of counsel during his criminal trial because his attorney failed to investigate his mental condition after having been twice struck in the head with a gun.

         Ground Two: Petitioner's fundamental constitutional rights were violated by his being denied due process.

         Ground Three: The trial court erred in not giving Petitioner's requested jury instruction on circumstantial evidence.

         Ground Four: Petitioner was denied his Sixth Amendment right to confront a witness at trial on cross examination.

         Ground Five: Petitioner could not have committed the crime for which he was convicted.

         Ground Six: Petitioner's appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance by disregarding the fact that part of the trial transcript was missing from the appellate record.

         Ground Seven: Petitioner was denied a fair trial by the accumulation of errors heretofore ...


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.