Lampley v. Bunting
Filing
11
Opinion and Order Adopting Report and Recommendation re 9 and denying petition. Judge Dan A. Polster(C,KA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
THOMAS LAMPLEY,
Petitioner,
vs.
JASON BUNTING,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 1:13-CV-1102
Judge Dan Aaron Polster
OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pro se by Thomas
Lampley pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Habeas Petition”). (Doc. # 1). Magistrate Judge
Vecchiarelli issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) in which she recommends denying
the petition. (Doc. # 9). Petitioner objects to the R&R. (Doc. # 10). For the reasons that
follow, the Court ADOPTS the R&R and OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections.
I.
On August 28, 2009, Lampley, while operating a vehicle in a parking lot, almost hit
LaShona Bronson. A dispute then arose between Bronson and Lampley concerning how close
Lampely was to her. Lampley left the parking lot, and upon his return he encountered LaShona
Bronson and her husband, J.B.. J.B. approached the vehicle that Lampley was driving and an
altercation ensued. Lampley maintains that J.B., after approaching the vehicle, began striking
him through the open window. At some point during the altercation Lampley accessed a firearm
and used it to shoot and fatally wound J.B.
On September 16, 2009, a Richland County grand jury issued a four-count indictment
charging Lampley with: 1) intentional murder (Ohio Rev. Code § 2903.02(A)), with a firearm
specification; 2) violent offense murder (Ohio Rev. Code § 2903.02(B)), with a firearm
specification; 3) possessing a weapon under a disability, in violation of (Ohio Rev. Code §
2923,13(A)(2)); and 4) tampering with evidence (Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.12(A)(1)).
During his trial, Lampley argued that he acted in self defense in shooting J.B. On
February 26, 2012, the jury convicted Lampley of all counts alleged in the indictment, and on
March 2, 2010, the trial court sentenced Lampley to consecutive terms of imprisonment tolling
25 years to life.
On May 15, 2013, Lampley, pro se, filed the instant Habeas Petition in which he raises
four grounds for relief: 1) the State was not required to prove every element of the charged
offense; 2) the trial court refused Lampley’s trial counsel’s request for a jury instruction on
voluntary manslaughter and on the Castle Doctrine in violation of Lampley’s Due Process rights;
3) ineffective assistance of counsel; and 4) the Appellate Court abused its discretion when it
reinstated Lampley’s appeal and allowed continued representation by deficient counsel.
II.
On September 27, 2013, Magistrate Judge Vecchiarelli issued an R&R recommending
that the Court deny Lampley’s Habeas Petition. Lampley has now filed an Objection to the R&R
(“Objection”). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1), the Court shall “make a de novo
-2-
determination of those portions of the [R&R] . . . to which objection is made.” Lampley’s
Objection raises no new arguments but are largely reiterations of issues that Magistrate Judge
Vecchiarelli has already addressed in the R&R. In his Objection, Lampley also notes that he did
not receive the R&R until five to seven days after it was mailed, and, therefore, he did not have
adequate time to respond to the R&R. (Doc. # 10 at 1). Lampley did not request an extension,
nor does he claim that he received the R&R after the 14 day time frame he had to respond to the
R&R. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES the Objections, ADOPTS the thorough and wellwritten R&R, and DENIES the Petition .
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Dan A. Polster October 15 , 2013
Dan Aaron Polster
U.S. District Judge
-3-
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?