Matthews v. Bracy
Filing
20
Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 9/9/3030. The Court overrules Petitioners objections, adopts Magistrate Judge Parkers Report and Recommendation, and dismisses Petitioners § 2254 petition. The Court certifies that no basis exists upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. re 14 Report and Recommendation, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2254) (S,KM)
Case: 1:17-cv-01503-JG Doc #: 20 Filed: 09/09/20 1 of 6. PageID #: 1050
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
-----------------------------------------------------------------KENNETH MATTHEWS,
:
:
Petitioner,
:
:
vs.
:
:
CHARMAINE BRACY, Warden
:
:
Respondent.
:
------------------------------------------------------------------
CASE NO. 1:17-cv-1503
OPINION & ORDER
[Resolving Doc. 1]
JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
On March 27, 2014, an Ohio jury found Petitioner Kenneth Matthews guilty of
murder and felonious assault. 1 He now petitions for a writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2254 to vacate his conviction and sentence. 2 Respondent Bracy opposes the
petition. 3 After a referral, the assigned magistrate judge recommends denying the petition, 4
and Matthews objects. 5
For the following reasons, the Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections, ADOPTS
the report and recommendation, and DISMISSES this petition.
I.
Background
On September 5, 2013, a Cuyahoga County Grand Jury indicted Petitioner
Matthews on one count of aggravated murder, 6 one count of murder, 7 two counts of
felonious assault, 8 and one count of firearm discharge on or near prohibited premises. 9
1
Doc. 8-1 at 13-19.
Doc. 1.
3
Doc. 8.
4
Doc. 14.
5
Doc. 17.
6
Ohio Rev. Code § 2903.01(A).
7
Ohio Rev. Code § 2903.02(B).
8
Ohio Rev. Code §§ 2903.11(A)(1) and (A)(2).
9
Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.162(A)(3); Doc. 8-1 at 5-8 (indictment).
2
Case: 1:17-cv-01503-JG Doc #: 20 Filed: 09/09/20 2 of 6. PageID #: 1051
Case No. 1:17-cv-1503
Gwin, J.
The indictment alleged that Matthews shot and killed Bruce Jernigan with a firearm on a
public road or highway. 10 Matthews pled not guilty. 11
The case went to trial. The state presented eyewitness testimony that Matthews
drove up to Jernigan and two friends. 12 After a vocal altercation, Matthews exited his
vehicle and shot Jernigan in the face. 13
On March 27, 2014, the jury found Matthews guilty on the murder count and both
felonious assault counts, all with firearm specifications. 14 On March 31, 2014, the trial
court sentenced Matthews to eighteen years to life and ordered restitution. 15
On April 22, 2014, Matthews appealed. 16 On January 22, 2015, the Eighth District
Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction but reversed the restitution order. 17
On August 21, 2015, Matthews, then pro se, moved to file a delayed appeal with
the Ohio Supreme Court. 18 On October 28, 2015, the Ohio Supreme Court denied
Matthews’ motion and dismissed the case. 19
On June 1, 2016, Matthews, still pro se, applied to reopen his direct appeal with the
Ohio Court of Appeals. 20 On August 30, 2016, the Ohio Court of Appeals denied
Id.
Id. at 12.
12
Id. at 90. These facts are taken from the Ohio Court of Appeals’ opinion on direct appeal. The Court
10
11
presumes they are correct unless Petitioner rebuts them with clear and convincing evidence. 28 U.S.C. §
2254(e)(1).
13
Doc. 8-1 at 90.
14
Doc. 8-1 at 13-19.
15
Id. at 26.
16
Id. at 28.
17
Id. at 88-96.
18
Id. at 101.
19
Id. at 115.
20
Id. at 116, 228.
-2-
Case: 1:17-cv-01503-JG Doc #: 20 Filed: 09/09/20 3 of 6. PageID #: 1052
Case No. 1:17-cv-1503
Gwin, J.
Matthews’ motion as untimely. 21 On December 8, 2016, Matthews moved for
reconsideration. 22 On February 8, 2017, the Ohio Court of Appeals denied the motion. 23
On July 17, 2017, Matthews, again pro se, petitioned this Court for a writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 24 He seeks to vacate his conviction and sentence on three
grounds:
GROUND ONE: There was insufficient evidence to convict Matthews for
murder under O.R.C. 2903.02(B), which violated his Due Process protections
under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. . . .
GROUND TWO: Matthews was denied a fair trial when the trial court denied
the State’s request to provide the jury with a lesser included offense instruction
of involuntary manslaughter on Matthews’s Count 2 of murder, which violated
his Due Process protections under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution. . . .
GROUND THREE: Matthews received ineffective assistance of counsel when
counsel failed to raise as a claim in Matthews’s direct appeal the trial court’s
denial of the State’s request for a lesser included offense instruction of
involuntary manslaughter on the Count 2 charge of murder, in violation of his
rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. 25
On September 9, 2019, Magistrate Judge Parker issued a report and
recommendation, recommending this Court deny Matthews’ petition. 26 On November 12,
2019, Matthews objected to the report and recommendation. 27
Id. at 142.
Id. at 172.
23
Id. at 197.
21
22
24
Doc. 1.
Id. at 4-6.
26
Doc. 14.
27
Doc. 19.
25
-3-
Case: 1:17-cv-01503-JG Doc #: 20 Filed: 09/09/20 4 of 6. PageID #: 1053
Case No. 1:17-cv-1503
Gwin, J.
II.
Discussion
Matthews objects to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that this Court find that
“Matthews’ habeas claims are procedurally defaulted, because he failed to fairly present
them at each level of the state courts’ ordinary review process.” 28 The Court reviews the
objected-to report portion de novo. 29
A federal court may not reach the merits of claims that a state prisoner procedurally
defaulted. 30 “If, due to the petitioner's failure to comply with [a] procedural rule, the state
court declines to reach the merits of the issue, and the state procedural rule is an
independent and adequate grounds for precluding relief, the claim is procedurally
defaulted.” 31
The procedural default rule comes from the concept that federal courts do not
second-guess state-law procedural rulings. If a state court has decided a state procedural
issue, federal courts almost always accept the state court’s ruling on the state-law
procedural issue.
The Sixth Circuit uses a three-step analysis to determine whether a claim is
procedurally defaulted. 32 Under this test, the Court decides whether: (1) the petitioner
failed to comply with an applicable state procedural rule; (2) the state courts actually
28
Doc. 19 at 2; Doc. 14 at 21. Matthews also objects to the report’s recommendation that his grounds
should be denied for lack of merit and that ground two is not a cognizable claim. Doc. 19 at 6, 10, 14, 19.
Because the Court concludes that Matthews has procedurally defaulted on all three of his grounds, the Court
does not consider these objections.
29
18 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c).
30
Reed v. Farley, 512 U.S. 339, 354-55 (1994); Williams v. Anderson, 460 F.3d 789, 805-06 (6th Cir. 2006).
31
Williams, 460 F.3d at 806.
32
Maupin v. Smith, 785 F.2d 135, 138-39 (6th Cir. 1986).
-4-
Case: 1:17-cv-01503-JG Doc #: 20 Filed: 09/09/20 5 of 6. PageID #: 1054
Case No. 1:17-cv-1503
Gwin, J.
enforced the state procedural sanction; and (3) the state procedural bar is an “independent
and adequate” state ground on which the state can foreclose federal review. 33
Matthews has procedurally defaulted on all three of his grounds. He failed to
comply with Ohio’s deadline for filing appeals and the Ohio Supreme Court denied
Matthews’s motion to file a delayed appeal. 34 “[A]pplicable Ohio court rules indicate that
the denial of a motion for a delayed appeal is a procedural ruling, not a ruling on the
merits.”35 “[Matthews’] grounds for relief have been procedurally defaulted.” 36
The Court may excuse a petitioner’s procedural default if the petitioner shows
“cause” for the procedural default and also shows “actual prejudice” from the alleged
error. 37 “Demonstrating cause requires showing that an ‘objective factor external to the
defense impeded [petitioner’s] efforts to comply’ with the state procedural rule.” 38 It is not
necessary, however, to resolve the issue of prejudice if a petitioner does not show cause for
the default. 39
Matthews says he was unaware of Ohio’s filing deadlines. 40 He says his pro se
status and prior counsels’ failure to tell him about the filing deadlines should excuse his
procedural default. 41
33
34
Id.
Doc. 8-1 at 115.
Bonilla v. Hurley, 370 F.3d 494, 497 (6th Cir. 2004).
Id. (citing Simpson v. Jones, 238 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir. 2000)).
37
Maupin, 785 F.2d at 138-39.
38
Franklin v. Anderson, 434 F.3d 412, 417 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 488
35
36
(1986)).
39
40
See Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. 527, 533 (1986).
Doc. 19 at 4.
41
Id.
-5-
Case: 1:17-cv-01503-JG Doc #: 20 Filed: 09/09/20 6 of 6. PageID #: 1055
Case No. 1:17-cv-1503
Gwin, J.
The Sixth Circuit has held that a petitioner’s “pro se status before the Ohio Supreme
Court is insufficient to establish cause to excuse his procedural default.” 42 And the Sixth
Circuit has held that a petitioner’s “ignorance of the law and procedural requirements for
filing a timely notice of appeal is insufficient to establish cause to excuse his procedural
default.” 43
The Sixth Circuit’s precedent stops Matthews argument that there is cause for his
procedural default. This Court may not consider Matthews’ grounds for habeas corpus
relief.
III.
Conclusion
The Court concludes that Petitioner Matthews has procedurally defaulted on all
three grounds raised in his petition for habeas corpus relief.
For the reasons above, this Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections, ADOPTS
Magistrate Judge Parker’s Report and Recommendation, and DISMISSES Petitioner’s § 2254
petition. The Court certifies that no basis exists upon which to issue a certificate of
appealability. 44
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 9, 2020
s/
James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
42
43
44
Bonilla, 370 F.3d at 498 (citing Hannah v. Conley, 49 F.3d 1193, 1197 (6th Cir. 1995)).
Id.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).
-6-
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?