United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division, Dayton
M. Rose, District Judge.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Michael R. Merz, United States Magistrate Judge.
habeas corpus case is before the Court for initial review
pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases
which provides in pertinent part: “[i]f it plainly
appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court,
the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to
notify the petitioner.”
Robinson seeks relief from the term of post-release control
imposed on him as part of his sentence for aggravated
burglary and domestic violence by The Honorable Frances McGee
in Montgomery County Common Pleas Case No. 09CR2854
(Petition, ECF No. 1, PageID 1). The public docket of that
case shows a Termination Entry filed December 11, 2009, in
which Mr. Robinson was sentenced to three years for
aggravated burglary with a mandatory consecutive six month
sentence for domestic violence with a pregnant victim
specification. The Entry advised Mr. Robinson that
“as part of this sentence, the defendant will be
supervised by the Parole Board for a period of five years
Post-Release Control after the defendant's release from
Robinson's request for relief in this case is that he
“be removed from post release control because I have no
sentence remaing [sic] on my time that I served.”
(Petition, ECF No. 1, PageID 5).
habeas corpus is available only to correct federal
constitutional violations. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a);
Wilson v. Corcoran, 562 U.S. 1 (2010); Lewis v.
Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990); Smith v.
Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (1982), Barclay v.
Florida, 463 U.S. 939 (1983). "[I]t is not the
province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state court
determinations on state law questions. In conducting habeas
review, a federal court is limited to deciding whether a
conviction violated the Constitution, laws, or treaties of
the United States." Estelle v. McGuire, 502
U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991).
Court perceives nothing unconstitutional in the post-release
control sentence Petitioner is serving. Ohio law regularly
provides for post-release control during which a former
prisoner is supervised by the Adult Parole Authority. The
time for post-release control is limited by statute, but it
is not limited to the time a defendant actually serves in
prison. That is why it is called “postrelease
control.” If in fact Mr. Robinson has not had any
violations, it appears his post-release control will expire
on its own terms in February 2018, five years after he was
released from imprisonment. In any event, Mr. Robinson
recites no facts relating to any violations and that question
is therefore not before the Court.
the Petition does not allege any violations of the United
States Constitution, it does not state a claim which can be
considered in federal habeas corpus. It is therefore
respectfully recommended that the Petition be dismissed.
Because reasonable jurists would not disagree with this
conclusion, Petitioner should be denied a certificate of
appealability and the Court should certify to the Sixth
Circuit that any appeal would be objectively frivolous and
therefore should not be permitted to proceed in forma
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific,
written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations within fourteen days after being served with
this Report and Recommendations. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
6(d), this period is extended to seventeen days because this
Report is being served by mail. .Such objections shall
specify the portions of the Report objected to and shall be
accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the
objections. If the Report and Recommendations are based in
whole or in part upon matters occurring of record at an oral
hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the
transcription of the record, or such portions of it as all
parties may agree upon or the Magistrate Judge deems
sufficient, unless the assigned District Judge otherwise
directs. A party may respond to another party's
objections within fourteen days after being served with a
copy thereof. Failure to make objections in accordance with
this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See United
States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981);
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153-55 (1985).
 Robinson was also sentenced to ninety
days for criminal damaging and given jail time credit in the