Williams v. Warden Mansfield Correctional Institution

Filing 15

OPINION and ORDER adopting 12 the Report and Recommendation. This case is DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 5/9/14. (jk1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Shashawn Williams,
Case No. 2:13-cv-113
Petitioner,

v.

Judge Michael H. Watson
Magistrate Judge Preston Deavers

Warden, Mansfield Correctional
Institution,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
On April 7, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that the instant petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be denied. This matter now is before the
Court on Petitioner's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation. For the reasons that follow, Petitioner's Objections, Doc. No. 14,

are OVERRULED. The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and
AFFIRMED. This case is hereby DISMISSED.
As Petitioner's sole claim for federal habeas corpus relief, he asserts that
there is constitutionally insufficient evidence to sustain his convictions on
aggravated robbery and receiving stolen property related to the robbery of Pizza
Hut (counts six through fourteen and sixteen of the Indictment) and that these
convictions are against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Magistrate Judge
recommended that Petitioner's claim that his convictions are against the manifest
weight of the evidence fails to provide an issue appropriate for federal habeas

corpus relief. The Magistrate further recommended that Petitioner's claim regarding
insufficiency of the evidence be dismissed on the merits under the standard set
forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).
Petitioner objects to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation of dismissal of
his claim of insufficiency of the evidence. He argues that testimony indicates that
he was at a strip club during the time of the Pizza Hut robbery. ECF# 949. He
argues, as he did previously, that evidence shows he had nothing to do with the
robbery or planning of the robbery of Pizza Hut, never consented to the use of his
car during the robbery, and never supplied firearms for this crime. Petitioner argues
that the evidence is constitutionally insufficient because he gave co-defendants the
firearms earlier- and not immediately prior to the Pizza Hut robbery. See ECF
#952-53. Additionally, Petitioner argues that evidence shows he never obtained
the stolen credit cards involved in this robbery, as police arrested his co-defendant
before he could give the stolen cards to Petitioner. PageiD# 954.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court has conducted a de novo review.
The Court does not find Petitioner's arguments to be persuasive. Under Jackson v.
Virginia, a reviewing Court must construe all of the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prosecution when considering a claim of insufficiency of the
evidence. As noted by the state appellate court, Petitioner was charged under a
complicity theory because it is alleged that he aided and abetted co-defendants in
the commission of the crimes. Upon review of the entire record, and for the reasons
already detailed by the state appellate court and in the Magistrate Judge's Report
Case No. 2:13-cv-113

Page 2 of 3

and Recommendation, this Court cannot conclude that Petitioner's claim warrants
federal habeas corpus relief.
Petitioner also requests a certificate of appealability. PageiD# 959. When a
claim has been denied on the merits, a certificate of appealability may issue only if
the petitioner "has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This standard is a codification of Barefoot v. Estelle,
463 U.S. 880 (1983). Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484. To make a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a petitioner must show "that
reasonable jurists could debate whether... the petition should have been resolved
in a different manner or that the issues presented were " 'adequate to deserve
encouragement to proceed further.'" /d. (citing Barefoot, 463 U.S., at 893, and
n.4 ). The Court is not persuaded that Petitioner has met this standard here,
particularly in view of the deference afforded the findings of the state appellate
court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), (e). Petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability
(see Doc. No. 14) therefore is DENIED.
Petitioner's Objections, Doc. No. 14, are OVERRULED. The Report and
Recommendation is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. This case is hereby DISMISSED.

Case No. 2:13-cv-113

Page 3 of 3