Dennison v. Warden, Ross Correctional Institution
Filing
17
OPINION AND ORDER adopting and affirming 14 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge George C. Smith on 10/20/2016. (kk)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification [Arthur Dennison, 667-007 @ Ross Correctional Institution, PO Box 7010, Chillicothe OH 45601])
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ARTHUR DENNISON,
Petitioner,
CASE NO. 2:15-CV-01344
JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH
MAGISTRATE JUDGE KEMP
v.
WARDEN, ROSS
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
On September 29, 2016, 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 dismissed. (ECF No. 14). Petitioner has filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation. (ECF Nos. 15, 16). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court has
conducted a de novo review. For the reasons that follow, Petitioner’s objections (ECF Nos. 15,
16) is OVERRULED. The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 14) is ADOPTED and
AFFIRMED. This action is hereby DISMISSED.
Petitioner is serving a sentence of 74 years imprisonment based on his convictions after a
jury trial in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas on charges related to a home invasion
robbery that occurred on March 15, 2009.
The state courts have affirmed Petitioner’s
convictions and sentence. Petitioner asserts that he was denied his right to a speedy trial, denied
a fair trial based on jury instructions on accomplice testimony and admission of allegedly
perjured testimony, and on the basis of cumulative error. The Magistrate Judge recommended
dismissal of Petitioner’s claims as procedurally defaulted or without merit. Petitioner objects to
the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations.
Petitioner specifically objects to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation of dismissal on
the merits of his claim regarding the denial of the right to a speedy trial. Petitioner maintains
that he disagreed with his attorneys’ requests for continuances of trial, repeatedly voiced his
objection to the trial court, and again argues that the State forced such continuances in order to
obtain additional evidence against him. Petitioner contends that much of the delay in bringing
him to trial resulted from the inadequate representation of defense counsel. Petitioner has
detailed some of the events preceding his trial in this regard and has attached portions of
transcripts in support. Petitioner has also attached what appear to be copies of defense counsel’s
fee and expense statement and Motion for Extraordinary Attorney’s Fees.
(ECF No. 15,
PageID# 2142-46). He argues that these documents show that counsel spent insufficient time on
his case to justify the waiver of Petitioner’s right to a speedy trial. Petitioner also has attached
portions of the trial transcripts. (ECF No. 16, PageID# 2166-72).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), this Court may grant relief only where the state appellate
court contravened or unreasonably applied federal law, or based its decision on an unreasonable
determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented. Upon review of the entire record,
and for the reasons already well detailed in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation,
balancing the factors set forth in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), the record fails to reflect
that such are the circumstances here.
2
Therefore, Petitioner’s objections (ECF Nos. 15, 16) are OVERRULED. The Report
and Recommendation (ECF No. 14) is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. This action is hereby
DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ George C. Smith
___________
GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?