Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Parrish v. Warden, Marion Correctional Institution
United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division, Dayton
May 23, 2017
WILLIAM A. PARRISH, JR., Petitioner,
WARDEN, Marion Correctional Institution, Respondent.
Herbert Rice District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Michael R. Merz United States Magistrate Judge
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).
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
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
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
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
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
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