Roberts v. Gansheimer
Filing
37
Order Adopting Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (re 33 ). The court denies as moot Robertss Motion to Stay (ECF No. 12) and Robertss Motion to Expand the Record (ECF No. 22). The court grants in part and denies in part Respon dents Motion to Transfer Petitioners Second or Successive Habeas Petition to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (ECF No. 10). Grounds One through Three of Robertss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 4) will be transferred to the Sixth Circu it for consideration. Ground Four of Robertss Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 4) is hereby denied, and final judgment is entered in favor of Respondent. Furthermore, the court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision cannot be taken in good faith, and that there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 3/29/2012. (D,M)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
DAVID W. ROBERTS, Pro Se,
Petitioner
v.
RICH GANSHEIMER, WARDEN,
Respondent
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:10 CV 2619
JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.
ORDER
Pending before the court is Pro Se Petitioner David W. Roberts’s (“Petitioner” or “Roberts”)
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 4.) Petitioner also
filed the following Motions: (1) Motion to Stay and Abey Petitioner’s Habeas Corpus Proceedings
(ECF No. 12); and (2) Motion to Expand the Record (ECF No. 22). Respondent Rich Gansheimer
(“Respondent”) filed a Motion to Transfer Petitioner’s Second Habeas Petition to the Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals (ECF No. 10). This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Nancy A. Vecchiarelli
(the “Magistrate Judge”) for preparation of a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on Roberts’s
Petition and the pending motions. The Magistrate Judge issued an R&R on December 21, 2011,
recommending the following disposition of each pending motion: Respondent’s Motion to Transfer
should be granted as to Grounds One, Two, and Three, but denied as to Ground Four. Ground Four
of Roberts’s Petition should be dismissed as being without merit. The Magistrate Judge also found
that Roberts’s Motion to Stay should be denied, and his Motion to Expand the Record should be
denied as moot. For the following reasons, the court denies as moot Roberts’ Motions to Stay (ECF
No. 12) and to Expand the Record (ECF No. 22). The court denies Ground Four of Roberts’s
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 4). The court does not have jurisdiction over the
remaining grounds of relief because they constitute a second habeas petition. As such, the court
grants in part and denies in part Respondent’s Motion to Transfer (ECF No. 10). The court transfers
the remaining grounds of the Petition to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals for consideration.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Roberts was indicted by two separate grand juries for the following offenses: six counts of
drug possession; four counts of drug trafficking; two counts of trafficking with a school yard
specification; and two counts of possession of criminal tools. On July 31, 2006, Roberts pled guilty
to two counts of drug trafficking, two counts of drug possession, and two counts of possession of
criminal tools. The court imposed a sentence of six years for all counts, which the parties had
negotiated as part of Roberts’s plea agreement.
Roberts did not timely appeal his conviction, but on November 7, 2006, he requested the trial
court to withdraw his guilty plea, alleging that his counsel failed to conduct a pretrial investigation
of all of his charges, and the court failed to obtain and file a signed waiver of a jury trial. The trial
court denied this request. Roberts, without counsel, thereafter requested leave to file a delayed
appeal with the appellate court, arguing that the trial court failed to inform him of his right to appeal
and his trial counsel failed to do so as well. The appellate court denied his request to file a delayed
appeal without opinion, and the Supreme Court of Ohio denied leave to appeal. Again in February
of 2007, Roberts reasserted a similar request for leave to file a delayed appeal with the state
appellate court and thereafter the Ohio Supreme Court. Both courts summarily dismissed the
appeals. Thereafter, Roberts filed a petition for post-conviction relief before the trial court. He
alleged that he was entitled to relief because his trial counsel failed to conduct pretrial discovery,
-2-
to present his Fourth Amendment claims, to challenge the state’s case, to file a motion for a Bill of
Particulars, and to seek to suppress evidence seized illegally. The trial court, however, denied those
claims, finding that res judicata barred his claims because those claims had not been raised at trial
or on direct appeal. Additionally, the trial court found that, when Roberts voluntarily, knowingly,
and intelligently entered a guilty plea, he waived any purported constitutional violation that occurred
prior to entering that plea. Lastly, the court held that his ineffective assistance of counsel claims
failed because he did not present sufficient evidence to support that claim.
Roberts timely appealed the decision of the trial court, arguing that res judicata was
inapplicable to his case, the trial court failed to base its ruling on the facts in the record, and the
court erred in determining that he was not denied effective assistance of counsel. The state appellate
court rejected these arguments and denied his appeal. The Ohio Supreme Court also denied the
appeal.
Next, Roberts filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in June
2008 (“Petition I”) in this court. The Petition asserted five grounds for relief:1
Ground 1: Petitioner was denied Due Process and Equal Protection of
the law, when the trial court did not inform him of his appellate rights
and his subsequent application for leave to file a delayed appeal was
denied, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
Ground 2: Appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel when
trial counsel failed to inform Petitioner of his limited right to appeal in
violation of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Ground 3: Contrary to the Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the
States by the Fourteenth Amendment prohibiting police from making
1
The court permitted Roberts to amend his Petition to add the final three grounds
stated.
-3-
warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect’s home, the police
herein with reckless disregard of the constitutional mandate conducted
a warrantless arrest, search and seizure without probable cause or
exigent circumstance.
Ground 4: Defense counsel failed to bring to bear the necessary skill
and knowledge to render the trial a reliable adversarial testing process
as guaranteed by the Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution.
Ground 5: The suppression of evidence by the Prosecution favorable
to an accused violates due process of law where the evidence is
material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of any claim of
good faith contrary to the express provisions contained and guaranteed
by the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution.
In addition to Petition I, Roberts also filed two Motions for Leave to Conduct Discovery, arguing
that discovery was necessary to further support Grounds Two through Five of his Petition. The court
denied Petitioner’s Motions for Leave to Conduct Discovery, and granted Petitioner’s relief on
Ground One of his Petition, and ordered the state appellate court to grant Petitioner leave to file a
delayed appeal within ninety days or release him from custody. The court denied Grounds Two
through Five.
Petitioner then filed a motion for a delayed direct appeal in state court, which the state court
granted in July 2009. In July 2010, the state court overruled each assignment of error, finding that
when Petitioner pled guilty, he waived all assignments of error relating to events that arose before
he entered his guilty plea. The court also found that Petitioner’s guilty plea was made knowingly,
intelligently, and voluntarily. Petitioner appealed the decision to the Ohio Supreme Court, which
denied Roberts leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal.
In March 2010, Roberts filed a second petition for post-conviction relief with the trial court.
He alleged that he was entitled to relief because his trial counsel failed to provide effective
-4-
assistance, that he was deprived of his right to be free from unreasonable arrest, search, and seizure,
and that his right to Due Process was violated when the prosecuting attorney failed to disclose
exculpatory evidence. The trial court denied his petition, finding that the petition was untimely and
that res judicata barred his claims. He appealed the decision to the state appellate court. The state
appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision and dismissed the appeal. The record does not
indicate whether he appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.
II. THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Roberts filed the within Petition with this court, his second Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in November 2010 (“Petition II”). The grounds asserted in the
instant Petition are:
Ground 1: Contrary to the Fourth Amendment, made applicable to
the States by the Fourteenth Amendment prohibiting police from
making warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect’s home,
the police herein with reckless disregard of the constitutional
mandate conducted a warrantless arrest, search and seizure without
probable cause or exigent circumstance.
Ground 2: Petitioner was deprived of his right to the effective
assistance of trial counsel in contravention of the Fourth, Sixth, and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Ground 3: The prosecution suppressed evidence favorable to the
accused in violation of his rights to due process of law, where the
evidence is material either to guilt and punishment, contrary to the
express provisions contained and guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Ground 4: The trial court accepted Petitioner’s guilty plea, in spite
of it not being entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily
pursuant to the requirements of Crim. R. 11, as it regards the nature
of the charges.
Magistrate Judge Vecchiarelli concluded that, as to Grounds One through Three of Petition
-5-
II, the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the claims because they constitute a
second or successive petition within the meaning of § 2244, and as such, the Petition must be
transferred to the Sixth Circuit. (R&R at 15, ECF No. 33, citing In re Sims, 111 F.3d 45 (6th Cir.
1997).) She found that both Petition I and Petition II attack the same judgments. (R&R at 15, ECF
No. 33.) She also found that Grounds Three, Four, and Five in Petition I were the same as Grounds
One, Two, and Three in Petition II. (Id.) The Magistrate Judge determined that Grounds Three
through Five of Petition I were previously adjudicated on the merits when the court dismissed those
claims in Petition I, finding that Roberts waived the ability to seek relief on these claims when he
entered a plea of guilty. (Id.) Consequently, she concluded that Grounds One through Three of
Petition II should be construed as a second or successive habeas petition. (Id.)
The Magistrate Judge also found that Ground Four is not a second or successive habeas
petition. Although Ground Four of Petition II attacks the same court judgments that Roberts
attacked in Petition I, this claim was not ripe when Roberts filed Petition I. (Id. at 15–16.) Because
the claim was not ripe when Roberts filed Petition I, Magistrate Judge Vecchiarelli determined that
it is not a second or successive petition, and therefore, it should not be transferred to the Sixth
Circuit with the other claims. (Id. at 16–18.) Thus, Ground Four could be adjudicated on the merits.
Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Vecchiarelli concluded that Respondent’s Motion to Transfer (ECF
No. 10) should be granted in part and denied in part.
Before deciding the merits of Ground Four, the Magistrate Judge made the following
findings and recommendations. Magistrate Judge Vechiarelli determined that, to the extent that
Roberts’s Petition alleges constitutional errors that occurred during the adjudication of his
application for post-conviction relief, these errors are not cognizable in a federal habeas petition.
-6-
(R&R at 18, ECF No. 33.) Despite Respondent’s arguments that the court did not have jurisdiction
to review Ground Four because the claim is not cognizable in federal habeas proceedings,
Magistrate Judge Vecchiarelli found that Ground Four is cognizable in this proceeding. (Id. at 19.)
She also determined that Roberts had exhausted his state remedies; therefore, she recommended that
the court deny as moot Roberts’s Motion to Stay until he exhausted his state remedies. (Id. at
20–21.) Further, she concluded that, while evidentiary hearings are authorized in limited
circumstances when the facts relevant to the claim were not adequately developed in the state court
proceedings, Roberts’s Petition does not warrant an evidentiary hearing, as Ground Four involves
legal issues that the court can resolve without additional facts. (Id. at 20.) Roberts also moved to
expand the record. (Id.) Magistrate Judge Vecchiarelli found that, because the evidence that Roberts
seeks to introduce relates to the Grounds in Roberts’s Petition that the court does not have the
jurisdiction to hear, Roberts’s Motion to Expand the Record should be denied as moot. (Id.)
Lastly, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the court should dismiss Ground Four of Petition
II. Roberts argued that his guilty plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary because the court
did not inform him of the factual basis for the charges in violation of Ohio Rules of Criminal
Procedure, Rule 11 (“Ohio Criminal Rule 11"). In response, the Magistrate Judge notes that
[t]he indictments in the record specify the nature of the charges
against Roberts and the sections of the Ohio Rev. Code at which a
description of each offense may be found. (citation omitted). Roberts
does not argue that he failed to receive copies of his indictments, and
Roberts was represented by counsel. When the court asked Roberts
if he understood the nature of the charges against him, he said that he
did. (citation omitted). These facts, by themselves, are sufficient to
establish that Roberts understood the nature of the charges against
him, even if this court were not required to accord a presumption of
correctness to the trial and state appellate courts’ findings that
Roberts understood the nature of the charges against him.
-7-
(R&R at 28, ECF No. 33.) She determined that Roberts improperly relied on case law interpreting
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 11, and to the extent Roberts relied on Ohio Criminal
Rule 11, he could not maintain such a claim in a federal habeas petition. (Id. at 28–29.) She also
determined that to obtain habeas relief, Roberts must show that his guilty plea was not entered into
knowingly and intelligently such that it violated due process. She concluded that Roberts offered
no evidence to support his claim; thus, he “failed to overcome by clear and convincing evidence the
state courts’ finding that he understood the nature of the charges against him.” (Id.) Consequently,
she recommended that Ground Four be denied as being without merit.(Id.)
Roberts submitted an Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, in which he contends that
her conclusions were erroneous with regard to his Petition and his Motion to Expand the Record.
III. DISCUSSION
Roberts objects to the Magistrate Judge’s determination that Grounds One through Three
constitute a second or successive habeas petition. Roberts argues that Petition II should be treated
as a supplement to Petition I because his filing of Petition I was due to the state court’s error.
Essentially he argues that if the state court did not enter his sentence without informing him of his
appellate rights, then he would have filed a timely appeal and would not have had to seek habeas
relief in this court to permit him to file a delayed appeal. If he did not have to seek habeas relief to
permit his appeal, then he would not have brought the claims that are now being construed as a
second or successive habeas petition before this court in an earlier petition. He also argues that the
state court’s denial of appellate review of his claims caused him to bring his claims to this court
prematurely. He further argues that the procedural defaults on his claims should be excused for
cause, prejudice, to prevent a miscarriage of justice, and to achieve the ends of justice and that
-8-
claims that were dismissed due to procedural defaults do not constitute a second or successive
habeas petition when brought before the court again. Roberts’s arguments are not well-taken.
First, his claims in Petition I were not brought prematurely. He had exhausted his state
remedies, in regard to Grounds One through Three of Petition II when he brought Petition I. The
court adjudicated those claims in Petition I on the merits. This court determined that he had waived
his ability to argue the claims when he entered his guilty plea. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge
Vecchiarelli correctly determined that Grounds One through Three of Petition II are second or
successive within the meaning of § 2244, and this court is without jurisdiction to review the claims.
Because the court does not have jurisdiction over Grounds One through Three of Petition
II, the court will not consider Roberts’s Objections that go to the merits of his claims in Grounds
One through Three. Also, since the court is without jurisdiction to hear these Grounds, and, as the
Magistrate Judge determined, the evidence that Roberts wishes to add to the record goes to Grounds
One through Three of Petition II, Roberts’s Motion to Expand the Record is denied as moot. The
court must not expand the record to add evidence on claims that it does not have jurisdiction to
review.
The remaining Objections relate to Ground Four. Roberts objects to the Magistrate Judge’s
conclusion that he entered into his plea voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. As a preliminary
matter, the court has construed Roberts’s pleading to allege that the trial court accepted Petitioner’s
guilty plea, although it was not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily as required by
federal law, not Ohio Criminal Rule 11. See, e.g., Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 747–48
(1970); Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20, 28–29 (1992) (holding that the requirement that a guilty plea
must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary is beyond dispute). He argues that neither his trial
-9-
counsel nor the trial court informed him of the nature and the elements of the offenses with which
he was charged. He further argues that he never received the Indictment; consequently, he concludes
that he did not enter his plea of guilty voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. While Roberts
currently argues that he was not informed of the nature of the charges brought against him, this
assertion flies in the face of the record of the plea colloquy.
Magistrate Judge Vecchiarelli relies on the appellate court’s finding that Roberts affirmed
on the record that he understood the nature of the charges brought against him in reaching her
conclusion that Roberts voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently entered his guilty plea. Although
Magistrate Judge Vecchiarelli intimates that Roberts had received a copy of the Indictment, this
court makes no finding on that issue. Regardless, the plea colloquy’s transcript fully supports the
state court’s conclusion that Roberts plead guilty knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.
At the plea colloquy, the prosecuting attorney informed the court of the charges being
brought against Roberts. (Tr. at 3–5, ECF No. 11-3, at 553–55.) The court later asked Roberts if he
understood everything that has been stated thus far, to which he responded, “I do, Your Honor.” (Tr.
at 6, ECF No. 11-3, at 556.) Then, the court enumerated Roberts’s constitutional rights as a criminal
defendant and asked Roberts if he understood his rights, to which Roberts responded, “I do.” (Tr.
at 8–9, ECF No. 11-3, at 558–59.) Next, the court stated each offense that Roberts was being
charged with, by its name, i.e. drug trafficking, drug possession, and possessing criminal tools. (Tr.
at 9–13, ECF No. 11-3, at 559–63).
The court further gave the felony classification for each
offense and the maximum penalty for each offense, including fines and whether there was a
mandatory sentence period. (Id.) Following that, the court asked Roberts: “Do you understand the
nature of your charges, the possible penalties, meaning maximum and mandatory requirements, and
-10-
Post-Release control as I have stated them to you?.” (Tr. at 12–13, ECF No. 11-3, at 562–63.)
Roberts responded, “I do, Your Honor.” (Tr. at 13, ECF No. 11-3, at 563.) The trial court then
determined that Roberts’s pleas will be made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. (Id.) Finally,
the court stated each charge in the Indictment, including naming the charging statute, and Roberts
plead guilty to each. (Tr. 13–16, ECF No. 11-3, at 561–63.)
The state court’s determination that Roberts made his plea knowingly, intelligently, and
voluntarily is a factual finding. Parke, 506 U.S. at 35–36. The court must presume that the state
court’s factual findings are correct, and the presumption is only rebuttable by clear and convincing
evidence. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). Since the state court determined that Roberts’s plea was made
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, and the transcript of the state proceeding supports this
determination, this court presumes that the state court’s determination was correct. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(e)(1); Garcia v. Johnson, 991 F.2d 324, 326–27 (1993). Respondent has not presented clear
and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption that his plea was made knowingly, voluntarily,
and intelligently. Consequently, the court finds that the state’s determination that Roberts’s plea was
made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently was not “contrary to or involved an unreasonable
application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United
States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Further, the state court’s decision was not “based on an
unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court
proceedings.” See id. at § 2254(d)(2). Consequently, all of Petitioner’s Objections are without
merit. The court denies Petitioner relief under Ground Four and dismisses the Petition, as it relates
to Ground Four and denies Petitioner’s Motion to Expand the Record.
Also, as of the date of this Order, Petitioner did not file any Objections to the Magistrate
-11-
Judge’s recommendation regarding his Motion to Stay, and Respondent did not file any Objections
to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation regarding his Motion to Transfer. By failing to do so,
each party has waived the right to appeal the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation regarding these
Motions. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985).
IV. CONCLUSION
The court finds, after a thorough de novo review of the Report and Recommendation and all
relevant documents in the record, the following. The court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation in full. (ECF No. 33.) The court denies as moot Roberts’s Motion to Stay (ECF
No. 12) and Roberts’s Motion to Expand the Record (ECF No. 22). The court grants in part and
denies in part Respondent’s Motion to Transfer Petitioner’s Second or Successive Habeas Petition
to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (ECF No. 10). Grounds One through Three of Roberts’s
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 4) will be transferred to the Sixth Circuit for
consideration. Ground Four of Roberts’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 4) is hereby
denied, and final judgment is entered in favor of Respondent. Furthermore, the court certifies,
-12-
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision cannot be taken in good faith,
and that there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c);
Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
March 29, 2012
-13-
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?