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.

Carrington v. Sloan

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

June 6, 2017

JERMONE CARRINGTON, Petitioner,
v.
BRIGHAM SLOAN, Respondent.

         JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER

          ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          DAN AARON POLSTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court are Petitioner Carrington's Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 For Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (the “Petition”), Doc #: 1, and the Report and Recommendation (the “R & R”) of Magistrate Judge William H. Baughman, Jr., Doc #: 11. For the reasons discussed herein, the R & R is adopted in full and the Petition is dismissed.

         I. Background

         On January 22, 2016, Carrington filed his Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Doc #: 1. Carrington asserted relief on three grounds:

[Ground One]
Pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, in making a Defendants [Due Process] rights meaningful, a sentencing court must assure itself that the information upon which it relies when fixing sentence is reliable and accurate before imposing consecutive sentencing that is contrary to law using the statutory guidelines of R.C. § 2929.14(C)(4).
. . .
[Ground Two]
The Equal Protection under Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution and the XIV Amendment to the United States Constitution places an affirmative duty on the trial court to make a finding regarding any inaccuracies in a PSI report it admits was wrong R.C. § 2951.03(B)(5) not justifying the court”s error of that law as an expression of the court”s frustration over identified errors. R.C. § 2951.03(B)(5).
. . .
[Ground Three]
Due process of law protected under Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution warrants a trial court's compliance with a CRIM.R. 11(C) statute, where a trial court must make certain advisement's prior to accepting a defendant's guilty plea in order to ensure that the plea is knowingly, intelligent, and voluntary.

Petition 4, 8, 11 (errors in original) (some brackets in original). On March 21, 2017, Magistrate Judge Baughman issued the R & R recommending that the Court dismiss the Petition. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Baughman recommended that Grounds One and Two be dismissed as noncognizable, Ground Three be dismissed as procedurally ...


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.