United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
DARRELL W. STEPHENS, Petitioner,
WARDEN, PICKAWAY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Barrett, J. Bowman, M.J.
an inmate in state custody at the Pickaway Correctional
Institution, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter is before the
Court on respondent's motion to dismiss (Doc. 9),
petitioner's response in opposition (Doc. 11), and
respondent's reply. (Doc. 12).
Trial Court Proceedings
On March 31, 1992, after entering a guilty plea in the
Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, petitioner was
convicted of one count each of felonious sexual penetration
and rape. (See Doc. 8, Ex. 3, 4). Petitioner was
sentenced to be imprisoned in the Ohio Department of
Rehabilitation and Correction for a period of five to
November 24, 2004, following a hearing, the trial court
issued an entry finding petitioner to be a sexually oriented
offender and notifying him of his registration requirements
under the version of Ohio Rev. Code § 2950 in effect at
the time (“Megan's Law”). (Doc. 8, Ex. 38).
On October 12, 2005, the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed
petitioner's sexual offender classification. (Doc. 8, Ex.
44). On February 22, 2006, the Ohio Supreme Court declined to
accept jurisdiction of petitioner's subsequent appeal.
(Doc. 8, Ex. 46).
Federal Habeas Corpus Petition Meanwhile, on April
5, 2005, petitioner filed a federal habeas corpus petition in
this Court in case number 1:05-cv-243. (See Doc. 8,
Ex. 47). Petitioner raised the following three grounds for
ONE: The Ohio Parole Authority violated
Petitioner's Due Process right(s) by utilizing new parole
eligibility guidelines thereby breaching the plea agreement
contract. (New Parole Guidelines Enhanced Parole Eligibility.
Facts: The Ohio Adult Parole Authority implemented new
parole eligibility guidelines that increased the punishment
of the Petitioner's bargained for sentence as rendered by
the existing state statute(s) and existing parole guidelines
that were in effect at the time Petitioner entered into the
plea agreement contract through negotiations with the state
prosecutor, and the subsequent entry of conviction by the
trial court in 1992.
TWO: The Ohio Courts abused their discretion in not
allowing the Petitioner to withdraw the guilty plea in order
to correct a miscarriage of justice.
Facts: The Petitioner's plea agreement was not
knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered into when
the Ohio Adult Parole Authority implemented a new parole
guideline structure that requires that Petitioner serve
substantially more prison time “before becoming
eligible for parole” than that imposed by law at the
time the Petitioner negotiated and accepted the bargained for
plea agreement contract and subsequent sentence thereof.
THREE: The new parole guidelines implemented by the
Ohio Adult Parole Authority and used to the detriment of the
Petitioner violate Ex Post Facto clause.
Facts: The retroactive application of the new parole
guidelines create a sufficient risk of increasing the measure
of punishment, in that the new guidelines enhanced the
petitioner's parole eligibility by that of approximately
11.5 years; well beyond the state statute and then existing
old parole guidelines that were in effect at the time
Petitioner negotiated and entered into the plea agreement
contract with the State of Ohio and subsequent sentence
thereof, which is part of the law annexed to the crime.
at PageID 711-34). On March 30, 2006, this Court dismissed
the habeas petition on the ground that it was time-barred
pursuant to 28 ...