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.

Roush v. Warden, Ross Correctional Institution

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

June 12, 2018

ROBERT B. ROUSH, Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, ROSS CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent.

          Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., Chief Judge

          ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          KIMBERLY A. JOLSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This is an action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner seeks release from confinement imposed pursuant to a state-court judgment in a criminal action. This case has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Columbus General Order 14-1 regarding assignments and references to United States Magistrate Judges.

         Petitioner has filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 1). Upon consideration, the undersigned finds the motion to be meritorious and it is GRANTED. Petitioner shall therefore be permitted to prosecute this action without prepayment of fees or costs and judicial officers who render services in this action will do so as if costs had been prepaid.

         This matter is also before the Court on its own motion under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (“Rule 4”). Pursuant to Rule 4, the Court conducts a preliminary review to determine whether “it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief . . .” If it does so appear, the petition must be dismissed. Id. With this standard in mind, and for the reasons that follow, the Court recommends that the petition be dismissed.

         I. Facts and Procedural History

         Petitioner challenges his February 3, 2012, conviction after a jury trial in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas on four counts of gross sexual imposition, one count of disseminating matter harmful to a juvenile, and five counts of rape. The Ohio Tenth District Court of Appeals summarized the facts and procedural history of the case as follows:

{¶ 2} On August 2, 2010, plaintiff-appellee, State of Ohio (“State”), indicted defendant on four counts of gross sexual imposition, felonies of the third degree, one count of disseminating matter harmful to a juvenile, a felony of the fourth degree, and five counts of rape, felonies of the first degree. The sole victim alleged in the charges was defendant's stepdaughter, K.R. The events giving rise to the indictment occurred between October 2007 and June 2010, when K.R. was between the ages of eight and eleven years old. The abuse came to light in July 2010 when K.R. was diagnosed with genital herpes.
{¶ 3} Defendant had his case tried to a jury. K.R., who was 13-years old at the time of trial, testified before the jury; defendant also testified on his own behalf. After four days of trial, the jury found defendant guilty of each crime charged in the indictment. The court proceeded directly to sentencing, imposing a prison term of five years on each gross sexual imposition conviction, twelve months on the disseminating matter harmful to a juvenile conviction, and ten years to life on each rape conviction. The court ordered that defendant serve the gross sexual imposition and rape sentences consecutively to each other, for an aggregate prison term of 70 years to life. The court classified defendant as a Tier III sex offender.
I. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶ 4} Defendant appeal[ed], assigning the following errors:
[I.] Counsel for the defense provided ineffective assistance to the Appellant during the trial in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution.
[II.] The Appellant suffered prejudice when Dr. Rodriguez was permitted over objection to offer an opinion which bolstered the veracity of [K.R.'s] statements and as a result the Appellant's right to a fair trial as memorialized in the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States ...

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.