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.

Sullivan v. Richard

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

November 8, 2017

MONTIE SULLIVAN, Petitioner,
v.
RHONDA RICHARD, WARDEN, MADISON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent.

          ALGENON L. MARBLEY, JUDGE.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Chelsey M. Vascura, Magistrate Judge.

         Petitioner, a state prisoner, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter is before the Court on its own motion to consider the sufficiency of the petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. For the reasons that follow, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED.

         Facts and Procedural History

         Petitioner challenges his convictions pursuant to his no contest pleas in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas on aggravated burglary, burglary, and attempted aggravated burglary. On January 21, 2016, the appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. State v. Sullivan, No. 15AP-809, 2016 WL 300175 (Ohio App. 10th Dist. Jan. 21, 2016). On May 18, 2016, the Ohio Supreme Court declined to accept jurisdiction of the appeal. State v. Sullivan, 145 Ohio St.3d 1472 (Ohio 2016). On October 31, 2016, the United States Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari. Sullivan v. Ohio, 137 S.Ct. 395 (2016).

         On October 26, 2017, Petitioner executed this habeas corpus petition. He asserts that his convictions violate the Fourth Amendment because police obtained evidence via warrantless GPS searches, and the state courts unconstitutionally applied the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. However, as a general matter, the Fourth Amendment does not provide a basis for federal habeas corpus relief, so long as the petitioner had an opportunity to present the claim to the state courts. Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 482 (1976); Riley v. Gray, 674 F.2d 522, 526 (6th Cir. 1982) (opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim exists where the state procedural mechanism presents an opportunity to raise the claim, and presentation of the claim was not frustrated by a failure of that mechanism).

One, the key purpose of federal habeas corpus is to free innocent prisoners. But whether an investigation violated the Fourth Amendment has no bearing on whether the defendant is guilty. [Stone v. Powell], at 490, 96 S.Ct. 3037. Two, exclusion is a prudential deterrent prescribed by the courts, not a personal right guaranteed by the Constitution. Any deterrence produced by an additional layer of habeas review is small, but the cost of undoing final convictions is great. Id. at 493, 96 S.Ct. 3037.

Good v. Berghuis, 729 F.3d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 2013). Such plainly appear to be the circumstances here. See State v. Sullivan, 2016 WL 300175, at *1.[1]

         Recommended Disposition

         Therefore, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED.

         Procedure on Objections

         If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with supporting authority for the objection(s). A judge of this Court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. Upon proper objections, a judge of this Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may receive further evidence or may recommit this matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1).

         The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to have the district judge review the Report and Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

         The parties are further advised that, if they intend to file an appeal of any adverse decision, they may submit arguments in any objections filed, regarding ...


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.