District Court, N.D. Ohio — appointed by Ronald Reagan
Roberson v. Williams
District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2004-08-18
Monte James Roberson filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his Ohio convictions for engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity, marijuana trafficking with school specifications, and marijuana possession. He argued that the indictment was constitutionally deficient because it omitted essential predicate acts for the corrupt activity charge, violating due process notice requirements under the Ohio Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court denied the petition, finding that the state appellate court's conclusion of harmless error was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as the bill of particulars provided sufficient notice of the unindicted predicate offenses and the petitioner showed no prejudice. The court further held that claimed deficiencies in a state indictment are generally not cognizable on federal habeas review except as to notice, and that any error here did not rise to structural error warranting relief.
criminal lawprocedure
Papenfus v. Tibbals
District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2003-02-25 · cited 4×
This case involves Kenneth Ray Papenfus's federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the revocation of his parole and related conditions imposed after his state convictions for carrying a concealed weapon and burglary. The petition raised eight grounds, including alleged ex post facto violations, improper use of his juvenile record, due process deprivations, and First Amendment infringements stemming from parole stipulations restricting contact with minors. The court determined that the claims had not been exhausted in state court, as required before seeking federal relief. It therefore dismissed the petition without prejudice, while equitably tolling the one-year statute of limitations to permit the petitioner to pursue available state remedies within specified time frames.
criminal lawprocedurecivil rights
United States v. Welch
District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2001-09-04 · cited 1×
This case involves a federal prisoner's motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate or correct his sentence for a supervised release violation. After pleading guilty to bank robbery and firearm charges, the petitioner was on supervised release when he admitted to violations including a domestic violence incident and failure to return to a community corrections facility; the court revoked supervision and imposed a 6-month prison term. The petitioner later sought relief based on the subsequent dismissal of the domestic violence charge in state court, arguing it constituted newly discovered evidence warranting a reduced sentence under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 or Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The court denied the motion, holding that Rule 33 does not apply to supervised release revocations, that the dismissal was not evidence of facts existing at the time of the revocation hearing, and that revocation decisions rest on a preponderance of the evidence and the defendant's admissions rather than the outcome of parallel criminal proceedings.
criminal lawprocedure
United States v. Hernandez
District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2001-03-30 · cited 21×
Lupe Hernandez filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence after pleading guilty to drug conspiracy, import conspiracy, and money laundering charges arising from a 1994 indictment; he argued that the government breached an oral plea agreement regarding forfeiture and sentencing recommendations, that he received ineffective assistance from trial and appellate counsel, and that Apprendi v. New Jersey should apply to his case. The court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, holding that claims about the plea agreement had already been resolved on direct appeal, that other grounds were procedurally defaulted absent cause and prejudice, and that Apprendi does not apply retroactively on collateral review of a final conviction. The decision rested on precedents barring relitigation of appellate issues in § 2255 proceedings and on the conclusion that drug conspiracy convictions do not require proof of overt acts or specific drug quantities admitted in the plea.
criminal lawprocedurefederal power
Thomas v. Morgan
District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2000-08-25 · cited 2×
Kevin Thomas filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 1997 classification as a sexual predator under Ohio Rev. Code § 2950.09(B) based on 1992-1993 convictions for sexual offenses. The district court denied the petition after finding that the state proceedings afforded a full and fair hearing and that the constitutional claims lacked merit. The court reasoned that the statute's classification, registration, and notification provisions are civil and regulatory rather than punitive, so they do not violate the ex post facto clause, double jeopardy, due process, or equal protection when applied to pre-1997 convictions, consistent with the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in State v. Cook.
criminal lawcivil rightsfederal power
Lucas v. Carter
District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1999-03-23 · cited 7×
William Lucas filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 1985 Ohio convictions for three counts of attempted murder, aggravated burglary, and kidnapping, along with firearm specifications, on grounds including due process violations from multiple punishments, denial of the right to present relevant evidence, and improper dismissal of his state post-conviction petition. The court denied the petition in full. The core reasoning was that the claims were time-barred under the one-year statute of limitations in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (with a grace period for pre-1996 convictions), procedurally defaulted due to failure to exhaust state remedies or comply with state appellate rules (constituting independent and adequate state grounds), and in one instance not cognizable on federal habeas review as it attacked only the collateral proceeding itself.
criminal lawprocedure