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.

Parrish v. Warden, Marion Correctional Institution

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division, Dayton

May 23, 2017

WILLIAM A. PARRISH, JR., Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, Marion Correctional Institution, Respondent.

          Walter Herbert Rice District Judge

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

          Michael R. Merz United States Magistrate Judge

         This habeas corpus case is before the Court on Respondent's Motion to Dismiss on grounds that Petitioner's claims are unexhausted, procedurally defaulted, or not cognizable in federal habeas corpus (ECF No. 19). Petitioner opposes the Motion and has also objected (ECF No. 26) to the Magistrate Judge's Decision and Order denying his renewed Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (ECF No. 24). Judge Rice has recommitted the matter to the Magistrate Judge for reconsideration in light of the Objections (ECF No. 28).

         Petitioner pleads the following thirty-two Grounds for Relief:

GROUND ONE: Petitioner was denied his right to a direct appeal from his conviction when the State failed to meet the requirements of Equal Protection and Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, Amendment Fourteen.
Supporting Facts: The trial court conspired with other public official to prevent the Petitioner from having a meaningful direct appeal by deliberately filing an incomplete trial transcript to the Court of Appeals with missing testimony of the States only witness which was proven to perjured, and missing testimony of character witnesses, and a total of (476) large gaps in the trial transcript, and a erroneous certification of service attached to the trial transcript in somebody else name and case number which prevented appointed counsel from filing an appellate brief. By the States failure to file a complete record for two (2) years and six (6) month and then deny the Petitioner access to it, knowing that he would be unable to file a appellate brief, then dismiss the Petitioner appeal for failure to prosecute, violated Petitioners Fourteenth Amendment. Exhaution requirement should be waived, and to further litigate this matter in State court would be futile because the Supreme Court has ruled that the clerk of Court is not required to provide an indigent defendant with his personal copy of the transcript in addition to the copy filed with the Court of Appeals. State ex rel Greene v. Enright(1992) 63 Ohio St.3d 729, 732, 590 N.E.2d 1257. The Supreme Court of Ohio has also decided that, if the Appellant chooses to proceed pro se on direct appeal he relinquished the ability to gain access to the transcript by refusing the assistance of counsel. In re Greene 506 U.S. 1025.
GROUND TWO: Petitioner was denied effective assistance appellate counsel, in violation of Six, Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Const.
Supporting Facts: Through out the Petitioner appeal five court appointed attorneys where ineffective for failure to file a brief, and failed to have the record corrected which denied the Petitioner a direct appeal.
GROUND THREE: Court of Appeals abused it's discretion by allowing (5) court appointed attorneys to with-draw.
Supporting Facts: Five court appointed attorneys where appointed to represent the Petitioner and one attorney, Chris Wesner, was appointed twice and removed both times for no known reason. (Exhibit A) Shows that Chris Wesner was appointed twice. These actions committed by the Court of Appeals caused a severe, excessive, unexcusable delay processing the Petitioners direct appeal. Failure of the Court of Appeals to appoint effective counsel forced the Petitioner to proceed pro se.
GROUND FOUR: Court of Appeals abused it's discretion when it gave the trial court an order to provide the Petitioner with a copy of the record, but when the trial court violated the order the Court of appeals reversed there order.
Supporting Facts: On December 6th, 2013, Court of Appeals ordered the trial court to prepare a CD-ROM that has PDF versions of the trial transcript & proceedings and mail it to the Petitioner. This order was made directly to the trial Judge Steven K. Dankof. That order was violated and the Court of Appeals reversed the order.
GROUND FIVE: Petitioner was denied his right to a fast & speedy appeal in violation of Due Process of the State and Federal Constitutions, U.S. Const. Amendment VI, XIV; Section 10, 16, Art I, Ohio Const.
Supporting Facts: Petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal on July 17, 2012, after the failure of court appointed attorneys, it was discovered by the Petitioner that the record filed to the court of appeals was deliberately altered by the trial court where omitted testimony of the victims where he admitted to lying under oath, and omitted testimony of petitioners character witnesses, and the deliberate act of filing transcript with a certification of service with another persons name and case number on it. These actions committed by the State prevented appointed counsel from filing a merit brief, which severely prejudice the Petitioner by the excessive, unexcusable delay that resulted from the erroneous incomplete record filed by the trial court.
GROUND SIX: Petitioner was denied his statutory right to a fast & speedy trial right under the Six Amendment of the U.S. Const.
Supporting Facts: On September 15th, 2011, Petitioner was arrest for the listed charges. On January 13th, 2012, Petitioner attended a pre-trial hearing, during that hearing, Judge Steven K. Dankof and appointed counsel Jay Adams mislead the Petitioner by telling him, on the record, that he did not have the right to a fast & speedy trial because of a unissued probation holder from another county. It was discovered by the Petitioner that he did have a right to a fast & speedy trial. On May 30th, 2012, a motion to Discharge for Delay in Trial was filed, and the Petitioner had served a total of 256 days in the Montgomery County Jail, and had not signed any kind of time waiver, and was being held solely on the listed charges. A hearing was requested, but the motion was not taken inconsideration, and was over-ruled on May 31st, 2012, the next day, and without essential findings.
GROUND SEVEN: The trial court abused it's discretion and violated Petitioners Due Process Rights by denying him a Bill of Particulars.
Supporting Facts: On January 13th, 2012, the Petitioner attended a pre-trial hearing, during that hearing Petitioner verbally requested to be provided with a Bill of Particulars because the indictment lack vital information on how the listed crimes where committed. The indictment just tracked the statutory language, and the Petitioner discovery pack contain a 11 page police report. Petitioner constantly complained about the lack of information discovery pack contained, and the Petitioner was told that the prosecutor was holding back some of the discovery. This was stated by attorney Eugene Robinson, and this information was presented to the trial judge. The trial judge and attorney Jay Adams told the Petitioner that the Montgomery County Prosecutors Office does not provide defendants with a Bill of Particulars, which denied the Petitioner the right to a fair trial.
GROUND EIGHT: Petitioners constitutional rights where violated and denied a fair trial when prosecutor, John C. Amos, called to the Montgomery County Jail and had the Petitioner placed in isolation on phone restrictions so that he could not contact potential witnesses.
Supporting Facts: On or about the Month of March, 2012, prosecutor John C. Amos called the Montgomery County Jail and had the Petitioner placed in isolation. The next pre-trial hearing the indictment was present to the trial judge, Steven K. Dankof, and he called the County Jail and had the Petitioner placed back in regular population.
GROUND NINE: Petitioner Due Process rights where violated and denied a fair trial when the lead Detective, Christen Beane harassed each of the Petitioners witnesses before trial.
Supporting Facts: Right before the Petitioner trial Det. Beane went to each of the Petitioners witnesses residence with the demeanor of intimidation, tried to force them to write a statement against the Petitioner. This incident was presented to the trial judge, Steven K. Dankof, informing him of Det. Beane misconduct, but he refuse to address the issue and stated, “you will have to take that up with her supervisor”.
GROUND TEN: The trial court violated a higher court order in violation of Title 18 USCS §402. Contempts Constituting Crimes when it disobeyed an order from the Court of Appeals.
Supporting Facts: On December 6th, 2013, the Second District Court of Appeals of Montgomery, Ohio ordered the trial court to prepare a CD-ROM with PDF versions of the trial transcript & proceedings be mailed to the Petitioner at the expense of the State. The trial court refuse to provide the Petitioner with the CD-ROM, and when the Petitioner presented the issue to the Court of Appeals to hold Judge Steven K. Dankof in contempt, Appeals Court reversed there order.
GROUND ELEVEN: Petitioner did not knowingly and intelligent waive his right to counsel under U.S. ...

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.