Askew v. Bradshaw
Filing
17
Memorandum Opinion and Order: Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is accepted. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed. Furthermore, for the reasons stated herein and in the Report and Recommendation, 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).. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 9/18/13. (LC,S) re 13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Sero Duvall Askew,
Petitioner,
vs.
Margaret Bradshaw, Warden,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 5:12 CV 131
JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
Memorandum of Opinion and Order
Introduction
This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate
Judge McHargh (Doc. 13) which recommends dismissal of the Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus pending before the Court. Petitioner filed Objections to the Report and
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
1
recommendation.”
Discussion
After a very thorough discussion, the Magistrate Judge determined that the Petition is a
second or successive petition because the grounds therein challenge the underlying conviction
and not petitioner’s re-sentencing. In other words, the Petition does not raise claims originating
at re-sentencing and which could not have been addressed in the earlier petition. Because
petitioner failed to obtain authorization from the Sixth Circuit to file a second petition, the
Magistrate Judge recommended that the Petition be dismissed. Petitioner filed objections.
Petitioner maintains that his three grounds do challenge the re-sentencing. This Court
disagrees. The first claim involves a challenge to the appellate court’s decision following
petitioner’s re-sentencing wherein that court found the trial court was without jurisdiction to
vacate petitioner’s plea after his sentence was affirmed. The Court agrees with the Magistrate
Judge that this ultimately challenges the validity of the underlying conviction and not the resentence. The remaining two claims are based on ineffective assistance of appellate counsel
which also attack the underlying conviction in that they assert ineffectiveness in failing to raise
trial counsel’s failures related to the original conviction and sentence.
For the reasons stated above, and those stated in the Report and Recommendation which
is incorporated herein, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is accepted. The Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus is dismissed. Furthermore, for the reasons stated herein and in the Report and
Recommendation, the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from
2
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
Dated: 9/18/13
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?