Werber v. Beightler
Filing
64
Order Adopting Report and Recommendation 60 , overruling Petitioner's Objections (Doc. # 62 ), and adopting Magistrate Judge Burke's R&R (Doc. # 60 ). Consequently, the underlying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. # 1 ) is denied. Judge Dan A. Polster (C,KA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
GREGORY WERBER,
Petitioner,
vs.
TIM MILLIGAN, Acting Warden,
and/or Jason Bunting for Former
Warden Maggie Beightler,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 1:11-CV-400
Judge Dan Aaron Polster
ORDER
Pending before the Court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus (“Petition”) filed pro se
by Gregory Werber (“Petitioner”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. # 1). Judge Burke
recommends denying the petition. (Doc # 60). Petitioner objects. (Doc. # 62). For the reasons
below, the Court overrules Petitioner’s objections, adopts Judge Burke’s Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”)1, and denies the Petition.
I.
On September 29, 2007, Cuyahoga County police officers conducted a felony stop of two
vehicles: a Dodge Durango driven by Martin Baxter and a Chevy Impala driven by Petitioner.
(Doc. # 60 at 2–3). The officers recovered 270 pounds of marijuana from the Durango. (Id.).
Baxter planned to sell the marijuana to an FBI confidential informant, and Petitioner served as
Baxter’s accomplice. (Id.). During the arrest and after the officers read Petitioner his Miranda
rights, Petitioner admitted that the $6000 in his pocket was to pay Baxter for coordinating the
deal with the confidential informant. (Id.).
Petitioner and his co-defendant were indicted in state court on one count of drug
trafficking, one count of possession of drugs, and one count of possession of criminal tools. (Id.
1
The Court denies Ground Eleven on the merits, rather than following Judge Burke’s
recommendation that Ground Eleven was not exhausted.
at 5). Prior to trial, both defendants entered into a plea agreement wherein the State agreed: to
amend Count 1 from a second-degree felony to a third-degree felony; and to dismiss Counts 2
and 3. (Id. at 5–6). Based on the plea agreement, Petitioner pled guilty to amended Count 1, and
Counts 2 and 3 were nolled. (Id. at 6). On November 29, 2007, the trial court accepted
Petitioner’s guilty plea and sentenced him to five years of incarceration with three years of postrelease-control supervision. (Id.).
On appeal, the Eighth District Court of Appeals reversed Petitioner’s conviction and
remanded the case to the trial court. (Id. at 7). On remand, the state tried Petitioner on the three
original counts and produced the following evidence: (1) Petitioner admitted to officers on the
night of his arrest that the $6000 in his pocket was to pay Baxter for coordinating the drug deal,
(Doc. # 60 at 2–3); (2) law-enforcement officers observed Petitioner pick up Baxter at a
restaurant on the night of the arrest, drive in a manner referred to by officers as “typical
counter-surveillance,”2 drive Baxter to the Durango located in a parking lot, and follow Baxter
out of the parking lot immediately before the arrest, (Doc. # 44-7 at 50, 62–85); (3) an FBI
Special Agent presented a recorded conversation in which Baxter informs the confidential
informant that he and a third party plan to complete the deal in a rented storage unit, (Doc. # 448 at 141–42); and (4) the storage-unit manager identified Petitioner as the person who rented the
unit under a false name, (Doc. # 44-9 at 51, 55–60). The jury subsequently found Petitioner
guilty on all three counts. (Id. at 8). The court sentenced him to nine years’ incarceration with
three years’ post-release-control supervision. (Id.). Petitioner appealed to the Eighth District
and the Ohio Supreme Court, but the appeals were denied. (Id. at 9, 11).
Now before the Court is Petitioner’s federal habeas petition, which asserts thirteen
grounds for relief. (Doc. # 1). Judge Burke recommends that the Court deny the petition. (Doc.
# 60). Petitioner objects to the R&R in its entirety. (Doc. # 62).
2
“For example, last minute lane changes, falsely signaling, and increasing then decreasing
speed.” (Doc. # 32, Exhibit 66, Judgment Entry, Tr. 684).
-2-
II.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1), the Court shall “make a de novo determination of those
portions of the [R&R] . . . to which objection is made.” Because Petitioner objected to the R&R
in its entirety, the Court must examine Judge Burke’s determinations on all thirteen grounds of
Petitioner’s habeas petition.
A. Ground One
Petitioner asserts that he was denied his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process
when the trial court submitted an incorrect plea-hearing transcript in his second appeal to the
Eighth District Court of Appeals. (Doc. # 62 at 13–14). He argues that this amounts to
transcript “fraud” and that his conviction should be vacated pursuant to Chessman v. Teets, 354
U.S. 156 (1957). (Id.).
In Chessman, the official court reporter suddenly died after the conclusion of petitioner’s
trial, leaving a substantial portion of the trial transcript incomplete. Chessman, 354 U.S. at
158–61. In an effort to finish the transcript, a substitute reporter collaborated closely with the
prosecutor, went over the transcription with police officers, and destroyed a rough draft of the
transcript. Id. The Supreme Court held that the ex-parte completion of the trial record violated
petitioner’s Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process. Id. at 165–66. The Court
vacated the judgments of the lower courts and remanded the case. Id. at 166. Although
Chessman does not specify the motive or intent that is required to show fraud, other courts have
noted that fraud results when the party was “invidiously” or “evilly” motivated. See Bransford
v. Brown, 806 F.2d 83, 85 (6th Cir. 1986); United States ex rel. Hunter v. Follette, 307 F. Supp.
1023, 1025 (D.C.N.Y. 1969).
While Petitioner correctly notes a discrepancy in the plea-hearing transcripts, there is no
evidence of any invidious or evil intent. The omission merely relates to an advisement of
Petitioner’s forfeiture of $6,080, (Doc. # 60 at 23), and had no bearing on the outcome of the
proceedings.
-3-
Further, Petitioner’s claim became moot when his guilty plea and conviction were
overturned and vacated. A state prisoner may seek federal habeas corpus relief “only on the
ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United
States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Reed v. Farley, 512 U.S. 339, 347 (1994). Petitioner’s current
imprisonment is not the result of his guilty plea; it is the result of his subsequent conviction by a
jury. Accordingly, Petitioner’s falsified-transcript argument is without merit, and the Court
adopts Judge Burke’s recommendation and denies the Petition as to Ground One.
B. Grounds Two and Three
Petitioner alleges that the government improperly reinstated the original indictment,
rather than prosecuting him under the repudiated plea agreement, in violation of his due process
and indictment rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. (Doc. # 60 at 26).
It is well-settled that when a defendant repudiates a plea bargain, either by withdrawing
the plea or successfully challenging the conviction on appeal, timely reinstatement of the original
indictment is not barred. See Hawk v. Berkemer, 610 F.2d 445, 448 (6th Cir. 1979) (holding that
partial dismissal of the indictment “was only conditional on the defendant’s guilty plea, a plea
the defendant has in effect withdrawn,” thus allowing trial on the original counts).
Reinstatement of all original counts is permitted because “any waiver by the government was
only conditioned on the defendant’s guilty plea . . . .” Reid v. United States, 1998 U.S. App.
LEXIS 69832, at *6 (6th Cir. 1998) (citing Hawk, 610 F.2d at 448).
Petitioner successfully challenged his conviction on appeal; thus, the state did not violate
Petitioner’s constitutional rights when it prosecuted him under the original indictment. The
Court therefore adopts Judge Burke’s recommendation and denies the Petition as to Grounds
Two and Three.
C. Grounds Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, and Ten
Judge Burke concludes that Petitioner failed to exhaust Grounds Four (lack of probable
cause), Five (custodial interrogation), Six (interrogation after attorney requested), Seven
-4-
(Miranda warning), Eight (identity of confidential informant), and Ten (prosecution withheld
audio-video recording) because he did not “fairly present” the claims in his appeal to the Ohio
Supreme Court. (Doc. # 60 at 18). In objecting to the R&R, Petitioner relies on Johnson v.
Wolfe, 44 F. Appx. 702 (6th Cir. 2002). (Doc. # 62 at 3–4).
However, the United State Supreme Court’s decision in Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27,
32 (2004), effectively overruled the Sixth Circuit’s holding in Johnson. In Baldwin, the Court
held that “ordinarily a state prisoner does not ‘fairly present’ a claim to a state court if that court
must read beyond a petition or brief (or a similar document) that does not alert it to the presence
of a federal claim in order to find material, such as a lower court opinion in the case, that does
so.” 541 U.S. 27, 32 (2004). The Sixth Circuit recently cited Baldwin and further ruled that “the
petitioner must present the ground relied upon ‘face-up and squarely; the federal question must
be plainly defined.’” Gross v. Warden, 426 F. Appx. 349, 357 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Martens
v. Shannon, 836 F.2d 715, 717 (1st Cir. 1988)).
Petitioner failed to exhaust his state remedies because he required the Ohio Supreme
Court to look beyond the four corners of the brief to understand the claims’ nature and basis. He
did not explain the constitutional claims within the brief and merely referred the court to the
assignments of error contained in the attached appellate brief he had previously filed in the
Eighth District Court of Appeals. Thus, Petitioner did not fairly present his federal
constitutional claims to the Ohio Supreme Court. The Court adopts Judge Burke’s
recommendation and denies the Petition as to Grounds Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, and Ten.
D. Ground Nine
Petitioner alleges that his conviction violates his right to due process and a fundamentally
fair trial because the jury’s verdict was based on evidence improperly admitted under Ohio Rules
of Evidence 401 through 404. (Doc. # 60 at 30). Petitioner claims the jury considered false,
irrelevant, and prejudicial bad acts, “guilt by association,” and other evidence in reaching its
verdict. (Id.).
-5-
Federal courts may not issue a writ of habeas corpus “on the basis of a perceived error of
state law.” (Id.) (citing Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37, 41 (1984); Smith v. Sowders, 848 F.2d
735, 738 (6th Cir. 1988)). Trial-court errors in evidence law only warrant federal habeas review
if “the error renders the proceeding so fundamentally unfair as to deprive the petitioner of due
process under the Fourteenth Amendment.” McAdoo v. Elo, 365 F.3d 487, 494 (6th Cir.), cert.
denied, 543 U.S. 892 (2004) (citing Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 69–70 (1991)).
Despite Petitioner’s use of constitutional terms, he effectively challenges the trial court’s
evidentiary rulings, which is not cognizable for federal habeas review. Petitioner provides no
evidence that the admission of the evidence rendered the proceeding “fundamentally unfair.”
The Court adopts Judge Burke’s recommendation and denies relief as to Ground Nine.
E. Ground Eleven
Judge Burke concludes that Petitioner failed to exhaust Ground Eleven — an alleged
violation of his right to due process and a fair trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments
— because he failed to fairly present “the substance of a Brady claim or any other federal claim”
to the Ohio Supreme Court. (Doc. # 60 at 20). Even if Petitioner’s arguments to the Ohio
Supreme Court were sufficient, Judge Burke explains, Petitioner is procedurally barred from
federal habeas review because he violated the “well-established procedural rule that the ‘Ohio
Supreme Court will not consider constitutional claims not raised and preserved in the Ohio Court
of Appeals.’” (Id. at 20 n.9) (quoting Leroy v. Marshall, 757 F.2d 94, 99 (6th Cir. 1985)); see
also State v. Phillips, 272 N.E.2d 347, 352 (Ohio 1971).
The Sixth Circuit established four guidelines to consider in determining whether a claim
was fairly presented: “(1) reliance upon federal cases employing constitutional analysis; (2)
reliance upon state cases employing federal constitutional analysis; (3) phrasing the claim in
terms of constitutional law or in terms sufficiently particular to allege a denial of a specific
constitutional right; or (4) alleging facts well within the mainstream of constitutional law.”
McMeans v. Brigano, 228 F.3d 674, 681 (6th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). A federal habeas
-6-
petitioner is only required to raise the claims “before the state’s highest court.” Clinkscale v.
Carter, 375 F.3d 430, 437 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing Manning v. Alexander, 912 F.2d 878, 883 (6th
Cir. 1990)). And if a state court does not expressly rely on a procedural deficiency in reviewing
a claim, then a federal court may conduct habeas review. Baze v. Parker, 371 F.3d 310, 320 (6th
Cir. 2004) (citing Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 327 (1985)); see Harris v. Reed, 489
U.S. 255, 261 (1989).
The Court finds that Petitioner fairly presented his claims to the state courts. Petitioner
explained in his brief filed in the Ohio Supreme Court that the prosecutor never provided a
written summary of his co-defendant Baxter’s confession and exculpatory statements. (See Doc.
# 32-2 at 126). Petitioner only learned of the statements’ existence after his trial when Baxter
wrote him a letter, suggesting that Baxter told the prosecutor that Petitioner’s “only involvement
was as my friend you drove me to the hotel.” (See Id.). After providing the underlying facts,
Petitioner cited to federal and state authority:
The prosecutor’s suppression of discovery of co-defendant Baxter’s confession
and exculpatory statements violated Werber’s rights to Due Process, a Defense,
and a Fair Trial under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and Art. I, §
10; of the United States and Ohio Constitutions, as well as Crim.R. 16(B)(1)(a)
(ii), and (B)(1)(f). See also, Brady v. Maryland (1963), 373 U.S. 83, 86-88; and
State v. Brown (2007), 115 Ohio St.3d 55, 63-66, 873 N.E.2d 858, 866-868,
2007-OHIO 4837, ¶ 39-50.
(Id.).
While the R&R concludes that Petitioner’s arguments “did not present the substance of a
Brady claim or any other federal claim,” the Court disagrees. Petitioner provided: (1) the
relevant federal constitutional provisions; (2) the seminal federal case for due-process violations
related to improperly suppressed evidence; (3) a recent Ohio Supreme Court decision employing
the federal constitutional analysis; (4) his claim “in terms of constitutional law” and “allege[d] a
denial of a specific constitutional right”; and (5) facts “well within the mainstream of
constitutional law.” See McMeans, 228 F.3d at 681. Further, the Ohio Supreme Court denied
leave to appeal and dismissed Petitioner’s appeal because it did “not involv[e] any substantial
-7-
constitutional question.” (See Doc. # 32-2 at 181). Absent a clear indication that the state’s
highest court denied Petitioner’s appeal for violating a procedural rule, the Court will not bar
federal habeas review of his claim. See Baze, 371 F.3d at 320. Thus, Petitioner fairly presented
Ground Eleven in the state courts, and the Court will consider it on the merits.
In Brady v. Maryland, the United States Supreme Court held that the prosecution’s
suppression of “evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the
evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of
the prosecution.” 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). To establish a Brady violation, a petitioner must
establish: “(1) that the evidence was favorable to him; (2) that it was suppressed (whether
intentionally or not) by the government, and (3) that prejudice ensued.” Jamison v. Collins, 291
F.3d 380, 385 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281–82 (1999)). The
prejudice element, which is also referred to as the “materiality” element, is established “if there
is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the
proceeding would have been different.” Strickler, 527 U.S. at 280 (quoting United States v.
Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985)).
In Strickler v. Greene, the United States Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to
satisfy the materiality or prejudice element under Brady because he could not show a reasonable
probability that his conviction would have been different if the prosecutor had disclosed the
suppressed materials. Id. at 296. Although a reasonable possibility existed that inclusion of the
evidence may have produced a different result, the requisite probability did not exist and the
government provided the jury with substantial evidence linking petitioner to the crime,
including: eye-witness testimony, statements from several witnesses, and “considerable forensic
and other physical evidence.” Id. at 291–94.
In this case, it is clear that Baxter’s statements to the prosecutor, assuming they are what
Petitioner claims they are, would have been favorable to Petitioner. It is also clear that the
prosecutor did not provide a summary of the interview, despite Petitioner’s requests. But
-8-
Petitioner has not proved the prejudice element. Similar to Strickler, while a reasonable
possibility exists that the inclusion of Baxter’s statements would have produced a different result,
Petitioner has not shown a probability of a different result. The state presented the jury with a
significant amount of evidence connecting Petitioner to the crime: (1) Petitioner admitted to
officers on the night of the arrest that the $6000 in his pocket was to pay Baxter for coordinating
the drug deal, (Doc. # 60 at 2–3); (2) law-enforcement officers observed Petitioner pick up
Baxter at a restaurant on the night of the arrest, drive in a manner referred to by officers as
“typical counter-surveillance,” drive Baxter to the Durango located in a parking lot, and follow
Baxter out of the parking lot immediately before the arrest, (Doc. # 44-7 at 50, 62–85); (3) FBI
Special Agent presented a recorded conversation in which Baxter informs the confidential
informant that he and another individual plan to complete the deal in a rented storage unit, (Doc.
# 44-8 at 141–42); and (4) the storage-unit manager identified Petitioner as the person who
rented the unit under a false name, (Doc. # 44-9 at 51, 55–60). Based on the considerable
evidence provided to the jury, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable probability that, had the
evidence been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Accordingly,
the Court denies relief as to Ground Eleven because Petitioner has not established the prejudice
element.
F. Ground Twelve
Petitioner asserts that his conviction violates Ohio’s allied-offenses-of-similar-import
statute and the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment because possession of criminals
tools is a “lesser-included offense” of drug trafficking. (Doc. # 60 at 33). At the outset, this
Court declines to consider Petitioner’s claimed violation of an Ohio statute because federal
habeas courts may only consider whether a conviction violates the “Constitution, laws, or
treaties of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975);
see also Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990). For Petitioner to prevail on his federal
claim, he must show that the state court’s decision was contrary to, or an unreasonable
-9-
application of, clearly established federal law, or that it “was based on an unreasonable
determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
As to the double jeopardy claim, to determine whether one charge is a lesser-included
offense of another, courts consider whether each offense contains an element that the other does
not. See Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932); United States v. Dixon, 509
U.S. 688, 696–97 (1993). Individuals commit the crime of drug trafficking if they knowingly
“[p]repare for shipment, ship, transport, deliver, prepare for distribution, or distribute a
controlled substance,” with knowledge or with reasonable cause to believe “that the controlled
substance is intended for sale or resale by the offender or another person.” Ohio Rev. Code §
2925.03(A)(2). Whereas the crime of possessing criminal tools involves “possess[ing] or
hav[ing] under the person’s control any substance, device, instrument, or article, with purpose to
use it criminally.” Ohio Rev. Code § 2925.24(A).
The Court agrees with the R&R and the Eighth District Court of Appeals that drug
trafficking and possession of criminal tools are not the same offense for double-jeopardy
purposes. Each offense requires proof of an additional fact that the other does not. It is possible
to possess a criminal tool without preparing or distributing a controlled substance, and it is
possible to prepare or distribute a controlled substance without possessing a criminal tool.
Petitioner failed to show that the Eight District Court of Appeals’ decision is “contrary to, or an
unreasonable application of, Blockberger and its progeny.” The Court therefore adopts Judge
Burke’s recommendation and denies relief as to Ground Twelve.
G. Ground Thirteen
Petitioner asserts that he was denied the right to counsel under the Sixth and Fourteenth
Amendments at a “critical stage” of the proceedings when he, as a pro se defendant, was not
permitted to be present when the prosecutor selected and sent exhibits to the jury deliberation
room. (Doc. # 35 at 101).
The record indicates that Petitioner was present at the conclusion of the trial when the
-10-
prosecutor “gathered the admitted evidence for submission to the jury.” (Doc. # 60 at 37); (Doc.
# 32, Exhibit 66). Petitioner was not, however, present when the exhibits were sent to the jury
deliberation room. But that does not matter because there is no case law cited by Petitioner
holding that the delivery of evidence to a jury constitutes a “critical stage of the proceedings.”
In fact, not even the prosecutor presented the evidence to the jury; rather, the bailiff and a court
reporter placed the evidence in the jury deliberation room. (Doc. # 60 at 37). Moreover,
Petitioner has not alleged, let alone shown, that anything was improperly given to the jury or that
any exhibited was omitted. The Court therefore adopts Judge Burke’s recommendation and
denies Petitioner relief as to Ground Thirteen.
III.
Petitioner has also objected (Doc. # 62) to Judge Burke’s decision (Doc. # 60) to deny his
motion (Doc. # 59) requesting limited discovery and an evidentiary hearing on Grounds One,
Eight, Ten, Eleven, and Thirteen. Because the Court concludes that Grounds Eight and Ten are
procedurally barred, however, it would be futile to allow new evidence on those claims.
As for Grounds One, Eleven, and Thirteen, Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011),
provides that habeas corpus review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) is “limited to the record that
was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits.” Cullen, 131 S. Ct. at 1398.
Thus, a petitioner is left to prove that state-court adjudication resulted in “a decision that was
contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, established law.” Id.; see 28 U.S.C. §
2254(d)(1).
Petitioner attempts to avoid the Pinholster limitation by arguing he is entitled to an
evidentiary hearing, citing Williams v. Mitchell, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108493, at *2 (N.D.
Ohio October 27, 2011). (Doc. # 60 at 39). In Williams, however, the court construed
Pinholster to allow, but not require, an evidentiary hearing after a reviewing court determines
that a petitioner’s claim satisfies § 2254(d). See Williams, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108493, at *2;
(Doc. # 60 at 39). Petitioner has not pointed to any evidence he might have elicited at an
-11-
evidentiary hearing that would have been material to his claims.
Because Petitioner has not shown that Judge Burke’s denial of his motion was clearly
erroneous or contrary to law—as required under Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure when objecting to a magistrate judge’s decision on nondispositive matters—the Court
overrules his objection.
IV.
Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. # 62), and
ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Burke’s R&R (Doc. # 60). Consequently, the underlying Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. # 1) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Dan AaronPolster 4/25/12
Dan Aaron Polster
United States District Judge
-12-
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?