CRITTENDEN v. BUTTS

CRITTENDEN v. BUTTS

Petitioner:	LAMARR T. CRITTENDEN
Respondent:	KEITH BUTTS
Case Number:	1:2017cv02279
Filed:	July 3, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Office:	Indianapolis Office
Presiding Judge:	Mark J. Dinsmore
Presiding Judge:	Jane Magnus-Stinson
Nature of Suit:	Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
November 16, 2018	Filing 27 Entry Discussing Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus - Petitioner Lamarr Crittenden was found guilty of child molesting following a bench trial in an Indiana state court. He is currently serving a 35-year sentence for this conviction. Crittenden now seeks a writ of habeas corpus. For the reasons explained in this Entry, Crittenden's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied and the action dismissed with prejudice. In addition, the Court finds that a certificate of appealability should not issue. This Court has carefully reviewed the state record in light of Crittenden's claims and has given such consideration to those claims as the limited scope of its review in a habeas corpus proceeding permits. Because Crittenden failed to carry his burden on his claims, he is not entitled to habeas relief, and his petition is therefore denied. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. The Court denies issuing a certificate of appealability. (See Entry). Copy to petitioner via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 11/16/2018.(APD)

Date Filed

Document Text

November 16, 2018

Filing 27 Entry Discussing Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus - Petitioner Lamarr Crittenden was found guilty of child molesting following a bench trial in an Indiana state court. He is currently serving a 35-year sentence for this conviction. Crittenden now seeks a writ of habeas corpus. For the reasons explained in this Entry, Crittenden's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied and the action dismissed with prejudice. In addition, the Court finds that a certificate of appealability should not issue. This Court has carefully reviewed the state record in light of Crittenden's claims and has given such consideration to those claims as the limited scope of its review in a habeas corpus proceeding permits. Because Crittenden failed to carry his burden on his claims, he is not entitled to habeas relief, and his petition is therefore denied. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. The Court denies issuing a certificate of appealability. (See Entry). Copy to petitioner via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 11/16/2018.(APD)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: CRITTENDEN v. BUTTS
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Respondent: KEITH BUTTS
Represented By:	Jesse R. Drum
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: LAMARR T. CRITTENDEN
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?