Cravens v. Warden, Ross Correctional Institution

Filing 21

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS in all respects re 17 Report and Recommendation. The Court DISMISSES Petitioner's Petition 1 with prejudice, as Grounds One and Two are without merit, and Ground Three is procedurally d efaulted. The Court further DENIES a certificate of appealability. Finally, with respect to any application by Petitioner to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, the Court CERTIFIES that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore the Court DENIES Petitioner leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 1/17/2013. (km1) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/18/2013: # 1 Certified Mail Receipt) (km1).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
:
:
:
Petitioner,
:
:
v.
:
:
ROB JEFFREYS, WARDEN, LEBANON :
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
:
:
Respondent.
:
COREY CRAVENS,

NO. 1:11-CV-00265

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation (doc. 17) and Petitioner’s Objection
(doc. 20).
AFFIRMS

For the reasons indicated herein, the Court ADOPTS and

the

Magistrate

Judge’s

Report

and

Recommendation

and

DISMISSES the Petition with prejudice.
Petitioner filed his pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus on April 27, 2011, challenging his sentence, after a trial
by jury in the Hamilton County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas, for
robbery and felonious assault (doc. 1).

His conviction was

affirmed by the First District Court of Appeals, and the Ohio
Supreme Court (Id.).
Petitioner brings the instant habeas petition raising
three grounds for relief (Id.).

He argues 1) he was denied due

process due to insufficient evidence, 2) he was denied due process
when the trial court overruled his motion for acquittal because the
prosecution failed to prove the elements of his convictions, and 3)

he was denied assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal (Id.).
The Magistrate Judge found Petitioner’s third ground for
relief procedurally defaulted, and recommended that it should be
dismissed on such basis (doc. 17). Petitioner in no way challenged
such conclusion (doc. 20).
Petitioner’s arguments center on his first two grounds
for relief, in which Petitioner challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence on which he was convicted.

The Magistrate Judge found

these grounds essentially present the same legal question, because
the test for granting a motion for judgment of acquittal is whether
the prosecution has submitted sufficient evidence (doc. 17).
Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge conducted an extensive review of
the undisputed facts and the trial testimony by Petitioner’s coDefendants, that is, the evidence in the case (Id.).
Petitioner could not deny that he stated to his coDefendant Chaz Henry before the robbery that a robbery was about to
happen, that the shooting and robbery took place in Petitioner’s
van, while Petitioner was present, that Petitioner helped clean up
the blood from the shooting, and that Petitioner shared in the
proceeds of the robbery (doc. 17).

The Magistrate Judge found the

jury was entitled to believe the testimony of Petitioner’s coDefendants, which was subject to cross-examination, and which
established the above evidence (Id.). As this evidence constituted
sufficient

evidence

to

convict,

2

the

Magistrate

Judge

found

Petitioner’s Grounds One and Two without merit, and recommended
they should be dismissed with prejudice (Id.).
The Court has reviewed Petitioner’s Objections, in which
he reiterates his view that the evidence was insufficient to
convict him beyond a reasonable doubt (doc. 20).
Petitioner

attempts

to

articulate

further

In so doing,

evidence

lacking, that would have been more sufficient.

that

was

For example,

Petitioner contends there is no evidence of a detailed plan that he
discussed with any co-Defendant.

However, the Court finds a

reasonable jury could and did find the evidence of Petitioner’s
involvement in this matter sufficient to support his convictions.
The lack of even better evidence does not detract from the reality
of sufficient evidence supporting Petitioner’s guilt.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation (doc. 17) in all respects, and
DISMISSES Petitioner’s Petition (doc. 1) with prejudice, as Grounds
One and Two are without merit, and Ground Three is procedurally
defaulted.
appealability.

The

Court

Finally,

further
with

DENIES

respect

to

a
any

certificate
application

of
by

Petitioner to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, the Court
CERTIFIES pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal of this
Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore the Court
DENIES Petitioner leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis upon
a showing of financial necessity.

3

Fed. R. App. P. 24(a); Kincade

v. Sparkman, 117 F.3d 949, 952 (6th Cir. 1997).

SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2013

s/S. Arthur Spiegel
S. Arthur Spiegel
United States Senior District Judge

4