United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Kimberly A. Jolson Magistrate Judge
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES
November 7, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation ("R&R") pursuant to Rule 4 of
the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States
District Courts recommending that this action be dismissed.
ECF No. 2. Petitioner has filed objections to the Magistrate
Judge's R&R. ECF Nos. 4, 5. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b), this Court has conducted a cfe novo
review. For the reasons that follow, Petitioner's
objections, ECF Nos. 4, 5, are OVERRULED.
The R&R, ECF No. 2, is
ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. This
action is hereby DISMISSED.
Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of
challenges his December 16, 1997, convictions after a jury
trial in the Jefferson County Court of Common Pleas on five
counts of rape of a child under the age of thirteen. He
asserts as follows:
1. The Petitioner was denied Due Process and his Jury Trial
rights where the State Trial Court entered judgment of
conviction and imposed sentence where the Jury failed to
find, and failed to set out in their verdicts, every element
essential to the conviction and sentence; and where the Jury
Verdict Forms, which matched the jury instructions,
constructively amended and changed the name and/or nature of
the charged offenses, and reduced the State's burden of
proof by delaying determination of elements essential to the
guilty finding essential to the enhanced offenses from the
2. The Petitioner was denied Due Process when the State Trial
Court imposed/re-imposed postrelease control (PRO) without a
valid sentence, without a valid judgment of conviction, and
without a valid guilt determination set out in one or more
3. The Petitioner was denied due process when the State Trial
Court rendered judgment of conviction and imposed multiple
sentences with a want of jurisdiction over the subject matter
of the sets of facts upon which the jury made their guilt
determinations as shown within the record and set out in the
4. The Petitioner was denied Due Process where the State
Trial Court refused to hear or properly determine the
Petitioner's objections and challenges to the void and
illegal judgment, sentences, and re-imposition/correction of
PRC that were made during the resentencing hearings, and
where the State Appellate and Supreme Courts refused to
determine the Petitioner's appeal on the merits.
5. The Petitioner was denied Due Process, his Jury Trial
rights, and Constitutional Double Jeopardy Protections when
the State Trial Court rendered judgment of conviction and
imposed several sentences for five Counts that charged the
same offense repeatedly.
6. The Petitioner was denied Due Process when the State Trial
Court impose[d] two undefined "life" terms.
7. The Petitioner was denied Due Process when the State Trial
Court imposed, then re-imposed, "bad time", which
the Ohio Supreme Court determined was unconstitutional
approximately 15 years before it was reimposed.
8. The Petitioner was denied Due Process when the State Trial
Court sentenced him beyond the maximum terms allowed on the
basis of the facts found by the jury in its verdicts.
9. The Petitioner was denied Due Process where the State
Trial Court ignored statutory mandatory sentencing provisions