Opinion ID: 3043542
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Tennessee Convictions

Text: Hamm argued to the district court in Claim C that the two Tennessee convictions used as an aggravating factor in Hamm’s sentencing were unconstitutionally obtained, and, therefore, were invalid and could not have been used as an aggravating factor. Id. at . The district court did not reach the merits of this claim, however, because it found that it did not have jurisdiction to address the validity of the Tennessee convictions under the Supreme Court’s decision in Lackawanna County District Attorney v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394, 121 S. Ct. 1567 (2001), and, alternatively, that the claim was procedurally defaulted. Hamm § 2254 Order, 2013 WL 1282129 at , . 13 Case: 13-14376 Date Filed: 08/03/2015 Page: 14 of 72 After his conviction in Alabama, Hamm’s post-conviction counsel attempted to challenge the Tennessee convictions in state and federal court, beginning in 1992. The Tennessee courts determined that the statute of limitations on Hamm’s challenge had run and that Tennessee law did not permit habeas relief when an individual was not held in custody and his convictions had expired. Id. at  n.26. The Tennessee appellate court affirmed, and the Tennessee Supreme Court declined to hear the case. Id. Hamm then pursued federal relief in the Middle District of Tennessee. Id. at  n.27. The federal court did not consider the petition as an attack on his Alabama conviction, but rather as one directed to only the Tennessee convictions. Id. That court held that it did not have jurisdiction to grant relief under § 2254 because Hamm was not in custody on the Tennessee convictions. Id. Hamm conceded that Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 108 S. Ct. 1923 (1989), controlled the issue. Both the Tennessee district court and the Sixth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari. Hamm § 2254 Order, 2013 WL 1282129 at  n.27. The district court, in considering Hamm’s habeas petition in this case, first held that Coss prohibited the district court from reaching the merits of the expired Tennessee convictions when reviewing the Alabama conviction on a § 2254 petition. Id. at -38. The district court found that Coss applied to Hamm’s 14 Case: 13-14376 Date Filed: 08/03/2015 Page: 15 of 72 capital sentence and that the sole exception articulated in Coss did not apply to Hamm. Id. Alternatively, the district court determined that Hamm’s claims regarding the Tennessee convictions were procedurally defaulted in the state court and that Hamm could not overcome the default with a showing of cause or prejudice or by showing he was actually innocent of the Tennessee crimes to which he pled guilty. Id. at -39.