Robinson v. State of Ohio
Memorandum of Opinion and Order: This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Kenneth McHargh (Doc. 22 ) which recommends denial of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pending before the Court. Petitioner did not file objections to the recommendation. The Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 11/16/15. (LC,S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
John Michael Robinson,
Ed Sheldon, Warden
CASE NO. 3:14 CV 201
JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
Memorandum of Opinion and Order
This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate
Judge Kenneth McHargh (Doc. 22) which recommends denial of the Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus pending before the Court. Petitioner did not file objections to the
recommendation. For the following reasons, the Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED.
Standard of Review
Rule 8(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts provides, “The judge must determine de novo any proposed finding or
recommendation to which objection is made. The judge may accept, reject, or modify any
proposed finding or recommendation.” When no objections have been filed this Court need
only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation. See Advisory Committee Notes 1983 Addition to Federal Rule of Civil
Petitioner is incarcerated as a result of his 2001 conviction based on a guilty plea to
two counts of aggravated murder, with firearm specifications, and one count of attempted
aggravated murder, with specification. In his Petition, one ground for relief is raised which
asserts that the guilty plea was unlawfully induced in order to escape the risk of the death
The Magistrate Judge concluded that the Petition was untimely. Petitioner did not
dispute that the Petition was filed outside the limitations period, but asserted that his actual
innocence equitably tolled the filing. The Magistrate Judge reviewed the facts and
determined, upon the appropriate standard of review, that it had not been established that no
reasonable juror would have voted to find petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus,
petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling. Even assuming equitable tolling were allowed,
the Magistrate Judge further noted that, in a non-capital case, a claim of actual innocence does
not entitle a petitioner to habeas relief absent an independent constitutional violation in the
criminal proceeding. Petitioner’s sole ground for relief did not establish such given that the
Supreme Court has held that a plea of guilty is not invalid merely because it was entered to
avoid the possibility of a death penalty.
Having no objections, the Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and
found no clear error. Accordingly, it accepts the recommendation.
For the reasons set forth herein and for the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation, which is incorporated herein, the Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus is denied. Furthermore, the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an
appeal from this decision could not 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/ Patricia A. Gaughan
PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
United States District Judge
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?