United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER [RESOLVING ECF NO.
Y. Pearson United States District Judge.
Rodney Lomax, an Ohio prisoner at the Mansfield Correctional
Institution, through counsel,  filed a Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF No. 1),
alleging three (3) grounds for relief which challenge the
constitutional sufficiency of his convictions and sentence in
Cuyahoga County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas Case Nos.
CR-10-543073-A, CR-11-549126-B, and CR-11-549974-A. The case
was referred to Magistrate Judge George J. Limbert for a
Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636
and Local Rule 72.2. The magistrate judge subsequently issued
a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 9). In his Report, the
magistrate judge recommends that the Court dismiss the
petition because Ground One is not cognizable in this federal
habeas corpus proceeding or, in the alternative, is without
merit. In addition, Grounds Two and Three fail on the merits.
Petitioner filed timely Objections to the Magistrate
Judge's Report (ECF No. 11). The Court, after
reviewing the Objections, hereby adopts the Report and denies
November 2010, Petitioner was indicted in Case No.
CR-10-543073-A. Indictment (ECF No. 8 at PageID #: 243-60).
In April 2011, Petitioner was indicted in Case No.
CR-11-549126-B. Indictment (ECF No. 8 at PageID #: 262-66).
In May 2011, Petitioner was indicted in Case No.
CR-11-549974-A. Indictment (ECF No. 8 at PageID #: 234-41).
The parties reached a plea bargain, and on August 8, 2011,
Petitioner entered guilty pleas to amended charges in each
case. Transcript of Change of Plea Hearing (ECF No. 8 at
PageID #: 363-88). On September 22, 2011, the trial court
sentenced Petitioner to an aggregate 17-year term of
imprisonment on all three cases. Transcript of Sentencing
Hearing (ECF No. 8 at PageID #: 389-404); Journal Entries
(ECF No. 8 at PageID #: 268-70).
September 2012, the Eighth District Court of Appeals of Ohio
affirmed Petitioner's convictions and sentence. State
v. Lomax, No. No. 98125, 2012 WL 4019019 (Ohio App. 8th
Dist. Sept. 13, 2012) (ECF No. 8 at PageID #: 303-14). On
September 24, 2013, Petitioner filed an application for
reconsideration, which was denied by the Eighth District on
October 11, 2012. ECF No. 8 at PageID #: 328. In February
2013, the Ohio Supreme Court declined to accept jurisdiction
of the appeal, State v. Lomax, 134 Ohio St.3d 1453
(2013) (ECF No. 8 at PageID #: 361), and Petitioner did not
further appeal to the United States Supreme Court.
December 20, 2013, Petitioner filed the instant Petition for
a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1).
Standard of Review for a Magistrate Judge's Report and
objections have been made to the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation, the District Court standard of
review is de novo. Fed. R. Civ. 72(b)(3).
must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's
disposition that has been properly objected to. The district
judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended
disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter
to the magistrate judge with instructions.
this Court has conducted a de novo review of the
portions of the Magistrate Judge's Report to which
Petitioner has properly objected.
Law & Analysis
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), as amended by the Antiterrorism
and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
(“AEDPA”), a writ of habeas corpus may ...