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.

Garfield v. Eppinger

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

May 31, 2019

EDWARD M. GARFIELD, Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN LASHANN EPPINGER, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER

          SOLOMON OLIVER, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Pro 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.

         Background

         On 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.

         Petitioner filed an appeal of his conviction, raising ten assignments of error:

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 TRIAL.
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, ...

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.