United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
EDWARD M. GARFIELD, Petitioner,
WARDEN LASHANN EPPINGER, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER
SOLOMON OLIVER, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
se Petitioner Edward M. Garfield filed this Petition for
a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He is
currently serving a life sentence in the Grafton Correctional
Institution, having been convicted in the Lorain County Court
of Common Pleas in 2009 of one count of rape. As grounds for
relief, he asserts: (1) the trial court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction because a criminal complaint was not filed in
his case; and (2) the trial court ignored his right to due
process. For the reasons set forth below, the Petition is
denied and this action is dismissed.
September 7, 2005, the Lorain County Grand Jury indicted
Petitioner on one count of rape of a victim younger than 13
years of age in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b), a felony
of the first degree. The case was tried to a jury from August
24, 2009 through August 28, 2009. On August 28, 2009, the
jury returned a guilty verdict. On November 25, 2009, the
trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment and notified
him of his classification as a Tier III sex offender.
filed an appeal of his conviction, raising ten assignments of
1. THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT AS A MATTER OF LAW TO
SUPPORT A FINDING BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT [PETITIONER]
WAS GUILTY OF RAPE.
2. [PETITIONER'S] RAPE CONVICTION IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
3. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING THE DVD INTO EVIDENCE.
4. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PERMITTING THE STATE TO INTRODUCE
A SURPRISE WITNESS DURING THE COURSE OF TRIAL WHO WAS NOT
LISTED IN PRE-TRIAL DISCOVERY AND WHO DRAMATICALLY UNDERMINED
[PETITIONER'S] PROFFERED DEFENSE. THIS DENIED [HIM] DUE
PROCESS UNDER THE STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS.
5. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT THE TESTIMONY OF
CHRISTINE GARFIELD WAS HEARSAY.
6. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING THE DATES IN THE
INDICTMENT AND BILL OF PARTICULARS TO BE AMENDED DURING
7. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT THE ORIGINAL
INDICTMENT WAS INADMISSIBLE.
8. [PETITIONER] WAS NOT AFFORDED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
TRIAL COUNSEL IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, ...