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.

Machuca v. Bunting

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

June 15, 2018

Orlando Machuca, Petitioner,
v.
Jason Bunting, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER

          PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

         This 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 ACCEPTED.

         Standard of Review

         Rule 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 recommendation.

         Discussion

         Petitioner 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.[1] The jury found Petitioner guilty of both counts, and he was sentenced to nine years and six months in prison.

         Thereafter, 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.

         Petitioner, 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.

         Magistrate 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.

         Ground One

         Magistrate 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 ...


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.