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.

Norris v. Noble

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division, Dayton

April 5, 2018

ALEX NORRIS, Petitioner,
v.
JEFF NOBLE, Warden, adison Correctional Institution Respondent.

          District Judge Walter Herbert Rice

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

          Michael R. Merz, United States Magistrate Judge

         This is a habeas corpus case brought pro se by Petitioner Alex Norris under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Norris seeks relief from his conviction in the Clark County Common Pleas Court on charges of trafficking in heroin, possession of heroin, and having weapons under disability (Petition, ECF No. 3, PageID 21). The case 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.”

         Norris pleads the following grounds for relief:

Ground One: Trial court incorrectly overruled Appellant's Motion to Suppress.
Supporting Facts: § 6:6 Noncognizable constitutional claims (2007 edition Habeas Corpus) (1) Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 494-95 . . . to the 4th Amendment rule prohibiting the warrantless entry and the search and seizure of a person's house unreasonable. SPD [Springfield Police Department] officers proceeded into residence in search of fugitive. Officer then proceeded into basement opening a cigar box where suspected to find cocaine. Putting the substance back into the box, he then told another officer who explained he needed a search warrant. Not at the residence at the time of the search, Mr. Norris was apprehended immediately upon his arrival at the house. Remedies by my lawyer were brought to the suppression hearing on this issue. Also the testimony under oath by Officer Phillips initial findings conflicted with his affidavit perjuring [sic] his integrity of facts.
Ground Two: Trial court incorrectly allowed heresay [sic] evidence, unable to confront witness.
Supporting Facts: § 6:6 Noncognizable constitutional claims (2) Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680, 683 . . . (1993). Trial court incorrectly allowed heresay [sic] evidence denying appelant [sic] his right to confront a witness against him. The trial court allowed the State to introduce evidence in the form of phone text messages that were allegedly sent between Appellant and other unknown parties. The State did not bring in these other parties unknown nor did they bring in anyone from the cellular service provide to testify to the records.
Ground Three: § 7:4 Relationship between 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on 4th Amendment claims.
Supporting Facts: Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90 . . . (1980). Arresting officer Mr. Phillips illegally searched small areas when specifically told by superiors not to. Then fabricating the occurrence to obtain search warrant and later commiting [sic] perjury on the witness stand under oath with a conflicting story.

(Petition, ECF No. 3, PageID 25-30.)

         Procedural History

         Norris was indicted by the Clark County grand jury on May 5, 2014, on counts of possession of heroin, trafficking in heroin, and having weapons while under a disability. He was convicted on those charges by a petit jury and then sentenced to twelve and one-half years imprisonment. He appealed to the Second District Court of Appeals which affirmed the conviction. State v. Norris,2016-Ohio-5729, 76 N.E.3d 405, 2016 Ohio App. LEXIS 3592 (2ndDist. Sep. 9, 2016). Next, he sought review in the Ohio Supreme ...


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.