Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case
Martin Williams, pro se.
Yost, Ohio Attorney General, and Stephanie L. Watson,
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
A. JONES, SR., J.
1} Petitioner-appellant Agatha Martin Williams
("Williams") appeals from the trial court's
August 14, 2018 judgment granting the unopposed motion of
respondent-appellee Warden Bradenshawn Harris
("Harris") to dismiss Williams's petition for
habeas corpus. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
2} The record before us demonstrates that Williams
is incarcerated in the Northeast Reintegration Center located
in Cleveland, Cuyahoga County, Ohio; at the time relevant to
this appeal, Harris was the warden of the center.
Williams's incarceration is the result of a 2012
conviction - that was rendered by way of a
plea in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas
- to four counts of grand theft, one count
of theft, and one count of forgery. Williams had been a
licensed Ohio attorney. Her crimes involved theft from her
clients, which she maintained were to fuel a gambling
addiction she had.
3} The trial court sentenced Williams to five years
of community control sanctions, one year of which was to be
under intensive supervision. The trial court also imposed a
fine and restitution order against Williams. Williams was
informed at the sentencing hearing that a violation of her
community control sanctions would result in a maximum,
consecutive prison term being imposed on each offense for a
total prison term of 102 months.
4} After her conviction, the Ohio Supreme Court
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline conducted
hearings to determine what disciplinary action it would take
against Williams. Williams testified, and when asked when she
had last left the state of Ohio, she responded that she had
left approximately one week before the hearing to go to
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to gamble. Williams's conduct in
leaving Ohio to gamble violated the terms and conditions of
her community control sanctions and, accordingly, the state
filed a motion to revoke the sanctions. The trial court
granted the state's motion, revoked Williams's
community control sanctions, and sentenced her to 102 months
in prison that included consecutive terms. The trial court
again imposed a fine and restitution order against Williams.
5} Williams appealed. State v. Williams,
5th Dist. Stark No. 2013CA00189, 2013-Ohio-3448. In one of
her assignments of error, she contended that the trial court
did not make the required findings for the imposition of
consecutive sentences; the Fifth Appellate District agreed.
Id. at ¶ 10. The sentence was reversed and the
matter was remanded to the trial court for the limited
purpose of resentencing. Id. at ¶ 33, 39. The
other assignment of error, in which Williams contended that
the trial court should not have considered testimony from her
disciplinary hearing in deciding the state's motion to
revoke her community control sanctions, was overruled.
Id. at ¶ 34-38.
6} Williams attempted to appeal to the Ohio Supreme
Court, but the court declined to accept the appeal. State
v. Williams, 137 Ohio St.3d 1442, 2013-Ohio-5678, 999
N.E.2d 696. Further, the United States Supreme Court denied a
petition of writ of certiorari. State v. Williams,
527 U.S. 1119, 134 S.Ct. 2294, 189 L.Ed.2d 180 (2014).
Williams also filed a petition for habeas corpus in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, which the court transferred to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The
Northern District dismissed the petition. Williams v.
Kelly, N.D. Ohio No. 5:14-CV-1304, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
177031 (June 19, 2015).
7} In 2014, Williams was resentenced to the same 102
months sentence, with credit for time served. The court also
reimposed the fine and restitution order on her. Williams
appealed again, contending that the trial court (1) erred in
sentencing her to consecutive terms, (2) lacked the authority
to resentence her on one of the counts, and (3) abused its
discretion in ordering her to pay a fine. State v.
Martin-Williams, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2014CA00086,
2015-Ohio-780. The Fifth Appellate District overruled all of
Williams's assignments of error and affirmed the trial
court's judgment. Id. at ¶ 32, 37, 44-45.
The Ohio Supreme Court declined to accept the case. State
v. Williams, 143 Ohio St.3d 1406, 2015-Ohio-2747, 34
8} Williams attempted to get the Fifth Appellate
District to reconsider and review the case en banc; both
requests were denied, as well as Williams's attempt to
appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court. State v. Williams,
150 Ohio St.3d 1432, 2017-Ohio-7567, 81 N.E.3d 1272. Further,
Williams unsuccessfully sought to have the Fifth Appellate
District certify a conflict to the Ohio Supreme Court. Again,
Williams appealed that denial, but the Ohio Supreme Court
declined jurisdiction. State v. Williams, 151 Ohio
St.3d 1427, 2017-Ohio-8371, 84 N.E.3d 1064.
9} Further, in March 2017, Williams filed a writ of
procedendo in the Ohio Supreme Court, contending that the
trial court (1) violated the one document rule, (2) imposed
inconsistent sentences, (3) erred in imposing consecutive
sentences, (4) failed to merge allied offenses, (5) should
have aggregated offenses, (6) should have held a hearing on
restitution, (7) unlawfully imposed court costs, dual
penalties of community control and prison, and a fine, and
(8) should not have sentenced her for a violation of her
community control sanctions. Williams also contended that she
received ineffective assistance of ...