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.

Redd v. Schweitzer

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

November 1, 2017

STANLEY E. REDD, JR., Petitioner,
v.
TOM SCHWEITZER, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER

          CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Stanley E. Redd, Jr.'s Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (ECF #1). For the following reasons, the Court accepts and adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, and dismisses Petitioner's Petition as time barred.

         FACTS

         The following is a factual synopsis of Petitioner's claims. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, adopted and incorporated, provides a more complete and detailed discussion of the facts.

         In May 2011, the Trumbull County Grand Jury indicted Petitioner on two counts of Trafficking in Cocaine and one count of Possession of Cocaine. All three counts included Forfeiture Specifications. In January 2013, Petitioner withdrew his not guilty plea and entered a plea of no contest to an amended Indictment, which included two counts of Drug Trafficking and one count of Possession of Cocaine, including the Forfeiture Specifications. The Plea Agreement included an explanation of Petitioner's appeal rights. On April 17, 2013, Petitioner was sentenced to eleven months in prison on each of Counts One and Two and four years in prison on Count Three, to be served concurrent to each other for a total prison sentence of four years.

         On May 23, 2013, Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal to the Eleventh District Court of Appeals. On August 1, 2013, the State filed a Motion to Dismiss the appeal for failure to prosecute, arguing that Petitioner had failed to file an Appellate Brief as required by the appellate rules and had not filed a Motion for Extension of Time to file his Brief. Petitioner did not file an opposition to the State's Motion to Dismiss. On September 16, 2013, the Court of Appeals granted the State's Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the Appeal for failure to prosecute.

         On December 4, 2013, Petitioner filed a Motion to Reinstate Case. The State filed an Opposition. On March 11, 2014, the Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's Motion to Reinstate Case. The Court of Appeals explained that Petitioner's brief was due on July 22, 2013 and was not dismissed by the Court of Appeals for failure to prosecute until September 16, 2013. Petitioner did not file a Motion to Reinstate until December 4, 2013.

         On March 23, 2015, Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal and Motion for Leave to File Delayed Appeal in the Court of Appeals. On August 3, 2015, the Court of Appeals overruled Petitioner's Motion for Leave and dismissed his Appeal. On September 17, 2015, Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal from the Eleventh District Court of Appeals' August 3, 2015 Judgment with the Supreme Court of Ohio. On October 16, 2015, the State filed a Memorandum in Opposition. On February 10, 2016, the Supreme Court of Ohio declined to accept jurisdiction of Petitioner's Appeal.

         Petitioner filed the instant Petition on February 8, 2017, asserting one ground for relief:

GROUND ONE: Petitioner's constitutional rights pursuant to, inter alia, the due process clause of the federal constitution, were violated when the Ohio state courts failed to liberally construe Petitioner's filings and ignored a stark violation of Petitioner's right to effective assistance of counsel.

         On February 13, 2017, this Court referred Petitioner's Petition to the Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation. Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition as Time-Barred on April 26, 2017. The Magistrate Judge issued his Report and Recommendation on January 21, 2016. On February 8, 2016, Petitioner filed an Objection to the Magistrate's Judge's Report and Recommendation.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         When a federal habeas claim has been adjudicated by the state courts, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) provides the writ shall not issue unless the state decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” Further, a federal court may grant habeas relief if the state court arrives at a decision opposite to that reached by the Supreme Court of the United States on a question of law, or if the state court decides a case differently than did the Supreme Court on a set of materially indistinguishable facts. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405-406 (2000). The appropriate measure of whether or not a state court decision unreasonably applied clearly established federal law is whether that state adjudication was “objectively unreasonable” and not merely erroneous or incorrect. Williams, 529 U.S. at 409-411.

         Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1), findings of fact made by the state court are presumed correct, rebuttable only by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. McAdoo v. Elo, 365 F.3d 487, 493-494 (6th Cir. ...


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.