Gatewood v. Sloan
Filing
14
Memorandum Opinion and Order: I overrule Gatewood's objections, (Doc. No. 13), to Judge Baughman's Report and Recommendation, (Doc. No. 10), adopt the Report and Recommendation in full, and deny Gatewood's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2254. Further, I certify there is no basis on which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). re 10 Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick on 2/6/2019. (S,AL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Paul Gatewood,
Case No. 1:16-cv-0334
Petitioner,
v.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
Brigham Sloan, Warden,
Respondent.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Petitioner Paul Gatewood, acting pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §
2254, related to his conviction on burglary charges following his entry of a guilty plea in the
Cuyahoga County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas. (Doc. No. 1). Magistrate Judge William H.
Baughman, Jr. reviewed the petition as well as the related briefing pursuant to Local Rule 72.2(b)(2)
and recommends I deny the petition. (Doc. No. 10). Gatewood has filed objections to Judge
Baughman’s Report and Recommendation. (Doc. No. 13). For the reasons stated below, I overrule
Gatewood’s objections and adopt Judge Baughman’s Report and Recommendation.
II.
BACKGROUND
Gatewood does not object to Judge Baughman’s description of the factual and procedural
history of Gatewood’s case, and I adopt those sections of the Report and Recommendation in full.
(Doc. No. 10 at 2-7).
III.
STANDARD
Once a magistrate judge has filed a report and recommendation, a party to the litigation may
“serve and file written objections” to the magistrate judge’s proposed findings and
recommendations, within 14 days of being served with a copy. 28 U.S.C. § 636. Written objections
“provide the district court with the opportunity to consider the specific contentions of the parties
and to correct any errors immediately . . . [and] to focus attention on those issues – factual and legal
– that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.” Kelly v. Withrow, 25 F.3d 363, 365 (6th Cir. 1994)
(quoting United States v. Walters, 638 F.3d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981) and Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140, 147 (1985)). A district court must conduct a de novo review only of the portions of the
magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations to which a party has made a specific objection. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
IV.
DISCUSSION
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) prohibits the
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus “with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in
State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim:
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable
application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court
of the United States; or
(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the
facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
Gatewood challenges the trial court’s imposition of consecutive eight-year sentences on the
two burglary counts to which he pled guilty. (Doc. No. 1 and 1-2). Gatewood claims the Ohio
courts used the wrong analysis to determine whether his sentence was disproportionate in
comparison to those received by other offenders. (Doc. No. 1-2 at 5-6). Judge Baughman
2
recommends I conclude Gatewood is not entitled to habeas relief because Gatewood’s sentence is
not unconstitutionally disproportionate in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Gatewood objects to Judge Baughman’s recommendation, arguing the Court of Appeals
should have considered the proportionality of his sentence based on his conduct during the
commission of the offenses rather than “in the context of an Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual
punishment analysis,” and the trial court erred in relying on the Court of Appeals’ “dictum
concerning proportionality” rather conducting its own analysis. (Doc. No. 13 at 4) (emphasis
removed).
I agree with Judge Baughman that the state courts did not reach a decision that was contrary
to, or involved the unreasonable application of, clearly-established federal law. The Court of
Appeals cited extensively to controlling Supreme Court precedent. (See, e.g., Doc. No. 10 at 23-24).
The appellate court applied that precedent and determined that the facts contained in the record –
facts which are entitled to deference on federal habeas review – did not support an inference that
Gatewood’s sentence was grossly disproportionate in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (See
Doc. No. 10 at 24).
Gatewood also contends his state court sentences are improper because the trial court did
not make sufficient findings in its journal entry and that the decision of the Court of Appeals in his
case is in conflict with the decision in State v. Moore, 24 N.E.3d 1197 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). The
Moore court, while considering the defendant’s appeal of his consecutive sentences imposed at a
resentencing hearing, engaged in a lengthy analysis of proportionate sentences through the lens of
Ohio Revised Code Section 2929.14. 24 N.E.3d at 1205-07. Federal habeas relief, however, is not
available for claims “based solely on an error of state law.” Norris v. Schotten, 146 F.3d 314, 328 (6th
Cir. 1998) (emphasis in original). As a result, Gatewood’s attempts to distinguish his claims from
3
Judge Baughman’s Eighth Amendment analysis by claiming the appellate court failed to conduct the
proper review under a state statute moves him further from relief, not closer.
Finally, the cases Gatewood cites concerning substantive review of a trial court’s sentencing
decision offer no basis for relief, as those cases arise in the context of post-conviction review of
federal trial courts under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and not habeas review of state trial courts under § 2254.
V.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, I overrule Gatewood’s objections, (Doc. No. 13), to Judge
Baughman’s Report and Recommendation, (Doc. No. 10), adopt the Report and Recommendation
in full, and deny Gatewood’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2254. Further, I
certify there is no basis on which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Fed. R.
App. P. 22(b).
So Ordered.
s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick
United States District Judge
4
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?