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.

Williams v. Harris

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga

June 6, 2019

AGATHA MARTIN WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
WARDEN BRADENSHAWN HARRIS, Respondent-Appellee.

          Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV-18-898531

          Agatha Martin Williams, pro se.

          Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney General, and Stephanie L. Watson, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

         ON RECONSIDERATION[1]

          JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

          LARRY 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 N.E.3d 133.

         {¶ 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 ...


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.