Wilson v. Coleman
Memorandum and Order denying as moot Petitioner's 17 Motion to impound the record; denying as moot Petitioner's 18 Motion requesting court to construe all arguments. Magistrate Judge David A. Ruiz on 10/27/2017.(G,CA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Case No. 5:16CV2690
JUDGE SARA LIOI
MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID A. RUIZ
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Keith Wilson has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254. The petition is before the magistrate judge pursuant to Local Rule
72.2(b)(2). The petitioner is in the custody of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation
and Correction pursuant to journal entry of sentence in the case of State of Ohio v.
Wilson, Case No. 15CR015 and 15CR048 (Holmes County June 25, 2015). (R. 1,
PageID #: 1; R. 13-1, RX 11, 12.) Currently before the court are two motions filed by
the pro se petitioner, a “Motion to Impound Record” (R. 17), and a “Motion
Requesting Court to Construe all arguments” (R. 18). For the following reasons,
both motions are denied as moot.
The underlying petition stems from Wilson’s 2015 convictions for aggravated
robbery, aggravated burglary, and other crimes, in the Holmes County (Ohio) Court
of Common Pleas. In his petition, Wilson raises eight grounds for relief:
1. Some or all of Keith Wilson’s convictions were against the manifest
weight of the evidence.
2. The trial court abused its discretion and committed plain error to
admit the evidence of telephone company records without an
authenticating witness, and the records were improperly read into
evidence by the prosecuting attorney.
3. It was structural error or plain error to continue the trial when the
victim was seen talking to a juror during a sidebar conference, in
violation of Keith Wilson’s constitutional right to a fair trial.
4. The trial court erred by overruling Keith Wilson’s motion for
mistrial. Otherwise, Keith Wilson’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel
and his right to a fair adjudication and to an appeal are compromised
by a faulty trial transcript.
5. There was insufficient evidence to convict Keith Wilson on all five
counts in the indictment and three gun specifications.
6. The trial court committed plain error by failing to merge the counts
at sentencing, in violation of the right against double jeopardy and
Ohio Revised Code 2941.25, because the crimes were allied offenses of
similar import. The concurrent sentences were thus contrary to law
under R.C. 2953.08(A)(4).
7. Keith Wilson suffered ineffective assistance of counsel.
8. The court committed plain errors in sentencing, contrary to law.
(R. 1, PageID #: 5, 7, 8, 10, 16.) The respondent has filed a Return of Writ (R. 13),
and Wilson has filed a reply, or Traverse (R. 16).
The petitioner’s “Motion to Impound Record” is one sentence and moves the
court to “impound petitioner’s Legal documents/record from the lower Court in order
for this Court to fully examine Petitioner’s claims.” (R. 17, PageID #: 805.) The
court construes this motion as a request that the state court record be preserved
and filed in this action. The respondent has filed the state court record, along with
the Return of Writ. See R. 13. The motion to impound (R. 17) is DENIED, as moot.
In addition, the petitioner’s “Motion Requesting Court to Construe all
arguments” is two sentences and moves the court to “construe all his arguments,” as
he has limited knowledge of the law, and is proceeding without the assistance of
counsel. (R. 18, PageID #: 806.) The pleadings of a petition drafted by a pro se
litigant, such as Wilson, are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers, and will be liberally construed. Urbina v. Thoms, 270 F.3d 292,
295 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972); Haines v. Kerner, 404
U.S. 519 (1972) (per curiam)). No other special treatment is afforded litigants who
decide to proceed pro se. McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (strict
adherence to procedural requirements); Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108 (6th Cir.
1991); Brock v. Hendershott, 840 F.2d 339, 343 (6th Cir. 1988). The motion to
construe (R. 18) is DENIED as moot because it does not request any relief apart
from the aforementioned standard applied to pro se filings.
For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner’s motions (R. 17-18) are DENIED, as
moot. IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ David A. Ruiz
David A. Ruiz
United States Magistrate Judge
Date: October 27, 2017
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?