United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER
PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation
of Magistrate Judge William H. Baughman (Doc. 15)
recommending that this Court dismiss petitioner's
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1). Petitioner has
filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation. For the
reasons set forth below, the Report and Recommendation is
8(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United
States District Courts provides that the district court
reviews de novo those portions of a report of a
magistrate judge to which a specific objection is made.
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52 (1985). The
judge may accept, reject, or modify any proposed finding or
was indicted in April 2014 by an Allen County Grant Jury on
one count of burglary, one count of domestic violence, and
one count of failure to comply. Petitioner went to trial in
October of 2014 on the burglary and domestic violence
charges. The jury found Petitioner guilty of both
counts, and he was sentenced to nine years and six months in
Petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal with the Ohio
Court of Appeals asserting three assignments of error: (1) he
was denied his right to a speedy trial as a result of actions
taken by trial counsel; (2) the trial court erred in
admitting other acts evidence relating to prior domestic
violence incidents; and (3) the trial court erred in not
appointing substitute counsel to the defendant. The Ohio
appeals court overruled the assignments of error and affirmed
the judgment. Petitioner, pro se, then filed a
timely notice of appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court raising
the same three assignments of error. On May 18, 2016, the
court declined to accept jurisdiction.
pro se, filed his federal petition for habeas relief
on September 16, 2016. He raises three grounds for relief:
Ground One: The trial court erred in denying
defendant-appellant fast and speedy trial rights in violation
of the Ohio [sic] and Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Ground Two: The trial court denied defendant-appellant's
right to a fair trial and due process of law by admitting
evidence of prior bad acts which was improper under Evid. R.
404(B) and prejudicial under Evid. R. 403(B) in violation of
petitioner's Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment
rights to the United States Constitution.
Ground Three: Defendant-appellant's right to
attorney-client privilege was violated requiring appointment
of new counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the
United States Constitution.
Judge Baughman determined that the petition was timely and
that Petitioner had exhausted his claims in state court by
presenting them through one full round of Ohio's
established appellate review procedure.
Judge Baughman recommended denying Ground One to the extent
Petitioner claimed a violation of federal constitutional law
because the Ohio appellate court's decision was not an
unreasonable application of clearly established federal law
in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972). Petitioner
does not object to this ...