Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Champion v. Timmerman-Cooper

United States District Court, Sixth Circuit

September 23, 2013

BRUCE R. CHAMPION, Petitioner,
v.
DEB TIMMERMAN-COOPER, Warden, London Correctional Institution, Respondent.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

MICHAEL R. MERZ, Magistrate Judge.

This habeas corpus case is brought pro se by Petitioner Bruce R. Champion to obtain relief from his conviction and consequent sentence in the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court in that court's Case No. 1997-CR-1509. The case is before the Court for initial[1] review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing ยง 2254 Cases which provides in pertinent part: "[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner."

Champion pleads the following Grounds for Relief:

GROUND FOR RELIEF ONE: Petitioner contest that the offenses imposed are contrary to law and violates the United States Constitution by being placed twice in jeopardy for the same act and receiving multiple punishments thereafter.
SUPPORTING FACTS: Petitioner[sic] sentence resulted in having multiple convictions for same conduct. It also violated State and Federal Constitutional Rights against Double Jeopardy and Allied Offenses, which lead being sentenced to an additional 10 years that was not authorized by law. The sentence is clearly against the General Assembly's Intent, Legislative Intent, and against constitutional rights. In Johnson, they were very clear to admit that R.C. 2941.15 in [sic] now clarified, and if that is true than [sic] when the Ohio Supreme Court made the ruling in Johnson, they were only clarifying an existing rule that would make that retroactive in nature because no Constitutional Rule was disturbed. It is clear that when a Constitutional Rule is not disturbed or charge, and an existing rule is only clarified than [sic] it would be retroactive.
GROUND FOR RELIEF TWO: The Trial Court erred when it failed to review the sentence error according to the Plain Error Analysis.
SUPPORTING FACTS: The Trial Court failed to apply the Plain Error Doctrine when it clearly exist [sic] to function as an avenue to review Double Jeopardy Claims. Once Allied Offenses of similar import exist, Allied Offenses Constitutes Plain Error and must be reviewed under the doctrine accordingly.
GROUND FOR RELIEF THREE: The Petitioner was placed twice in jeopardy was sentenced for allied offenses of similar import, which implicates being placed twice in Jeopardy for the same offense.
SUPPORTING FACTS: The Trial [court] Failed to recognize Aggravated Robbery and Kidnapping are Allied Offenses of similar import pursuant to R.C. 2941.25 in the Petitioner's case and it clearly was the duty of the trial court to correct this sentencing error. Petitioner is sentence in contrary to law by having more convictions than authorized by law, and in this particular case the Petitioner was sentenced to an additional 10 years, which is contrary to law and are not authorized by law.
GROUND FOR RELIEF FOUR: The Petitioner was entitled to a evidentiary hearing on a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief when a Co-Defendant and the complainant conspire to implicate the Petitioner and when the Co-Defendant recants his implication in a Sworn Affidavit.
SUPPORTING FACTS: Lloyd Jackson didn't testify at Petitioner's trial, and the parties stipulated that Jackson would assert his Fifth Amendment privilege if called. The State was then allowed to introduce evidence of Jackson's statements to police implicating Petitioner.
In the affidavits that were presented in support of Champion's petition, Jackson states that he lied to police when he implicated Champion, acting out of fear that if he didn't he would suffer the death penalty upon conviction. Jackson also states: "I should have said something earlier but Mr. Levinson (the prosecuting attorney) didn't allow me in court." Jackson further states that Beverly Williams, a victim who did testify for the State, cooperated with him by giving false evidence implicating Petitioner.
The statements that Lloyd Jackson made in his affidavits, to the effect that Petitioner was "framed" by the false statements that Jackson made to police and the false evidence that Beverly Williams gave at trial, was material to Petitioner's guilt of the offenses with which he was charged. It was also, to the extent that it demonstrates that Petitioner was not involved in those offenses, most favorable to the state to get the convictions.
Finally, Jackson made it clear to the prosecuting attorney that Petitioner was unaware of the existence of the affidavit, but Jackson was going to make Petitioner and his counsel aware at some point in the future that he was recanting his statement. Thereafter, once Petitioner received the information he acted diligently to procure his legal remedy by filing the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.