Taylor v. Noble

Filing 19

Memorandum of Opinion and Order: For the reasons set forth herein and for the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied. Furthermore, the Court certifies, purs uant 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). Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 9/18/19. (LC,S) re 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Michael C. Taylor, Jr.,
Petitioner,
vs.
Jeffrey B. Noble, Warden
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 3:17 CV 1448
JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN

Memorandum of Opinion and Order

Introduction
This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate
Judge Thomas Parker (Doc. 12) which recommends denial of the Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus pending before the Court. Petitioner filed objections to the recommendation.1 For the
following reasons, the Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED.
Standard of Review

1

Although petitioner initially attempted to appeal the Report and Recommendation
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, that court dismissed
the appeal as improperly taken. Petitioner also filed objections (Doc. 14) which
the Court notes are untimely, but will be considered.
1

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.”
Discussion
Petitioner is incarcerated following his convictions by a jury of two counts of
aggravated murder, each with firearms specifications. The Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus asserts three grounds for relief. The Magistrate Judge concluded, after thorough
discussion, that Ground One is procedurally defaulted and, alternatively, fails on the merits;
Ground Two is procedurally defaulted and, alternatively, non-cognizable; and Ground Three
is procedurally defaulted and, alternatively, non-cognizable and fails on the merits. Although
petitioner filed objections, the objections mainly argue that petitioner is factually innocent
and seem to concede that the claims are procedurally defaulted given the untimely attempt to
file a direct appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court. For the following reasons, the Court accepts
the recommendation.
Upon review, the state appellate court rejected petitioner’s two assignments of error.
The court found petitioner’s convictions for the aggravated murders of Montelle Taylor
(petitioner’s son) and Christian Snow-Veley as not against the manifest weight of the
evidence. The court also concluded that, because there was independent proof of a
conspiracy to murder Montelle, the trial court did not err in admitting the testimony of a
witness who related what Snow-Veley had told her. Petitioner did not file a timely appeal to
the Ohio Supreme Court.

2

Ground One of the Petition alleges a Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause
violation based on the claim that the trial court improperly admitted hearsay testimony. But,
petitioner fails to challenge the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that he defaulted this claim by
not fairly presenting it to the Ohio Supreme Court. Moreover, the Magistrate Judge correctly
concluded that Snow-Veley’s statements were non-testimonial and, therefore, the
Confrontation Clause was not violated. And, even if they were deemed to be testimonial,
other independent evidence showed that petitioner killed Snow-Veley and, thus, petitioner
could not invoke the Sixth Amendment.
Ground Two of the Petition alleges that the Ohio court of appeals decision was
unreasonable and against clearly established federal law when it affirmed the trial court’s
conclusion that the hearsay testimony was admissible because of the existence of a
conspiracy. Again, petitioner has not demonstrated that his claim was not procedurally
defaulted for failure to present it to the Ohio Supreme Court. Furthermore, the Court agrees
with the Magistrate Judge that the claim is not cognizable because it only alleges errors of
state law.
Ground Three of the Petition alleges that petitioner’s murder convictions were against
the manifest weight of the evidence. As with the other grounds, petitioner defaulted this claim
by failing to present it to the Ohio Supreme Court. Additionally, being a state law argument,
this claim is not cognizable on habeas review. Finally, even analyzing whether the state
appellate court reasonably concluded that the trial evidence was sufficient for a rational trier
of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that petitioner committed the essential elements of
the two aggravated murders with firearms specifications, the Court agrees with the Magistrate

3

Judge that the state courts reasonably determined such.
For these reasons, and those set forth by the Magistrate Judge in his Report and
Recommendation which is incorporated herein, petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief.
Moreover, the Court accepts the recommendation that no certificate of appealability should be
issued.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth herein and for the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation, 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 Court
Chief Judge
Dated: 9/18/19

4