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.

Hunley v. Warden, Marion Correctional Inst.

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

June 18, 2019

HAROLD HUNLEY, Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, MARION CORRECTIONAL INST., Respondent.

          ALGENON L. MARBLEY, JUDGE.

          ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          CHELSEY M. VASCURA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court for consideration of a motion filed by Petitioner, a state prisoner, seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis, which is GRANTED. (ECF No. 3.) Petitioner will therefore be allowed to prosecute his action without prepayment of fees or costs, and judicial officers who render services in this action shall do so as if the costs had been prepaid.

         Petitioner, proceeding without counsel, has also filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner seeks release from confinement imposed as part of the judgment of a State court in a criminal action. The case has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Columbus General Order 14-1 regarding assignments and references to Magistrate Judges.

         Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Court (“Rule 4”), the Court must conduct a preliminary review to determine whether “it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” If it does so appear, the petition must be dismissed. Id. Rule 4 allows for the dismissal of petitions which raise legally frivolous claims, as well as petitions that contain factual allegations that are palpably incredible or false. Carson v. Burke, 178 F.3d 434, 436-37 (6th Cir. 1999).

         Applying this standard, for the reasons that follow, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED. In addition, Petitioner's Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 4) is DENIED.

         I.

         Petitioner challenges the Ohio Department of Corrections' calculation of his underlying sentences imposed in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. Petitioner is housed in the Marion Correctional Institution, which lies within the Northern District of Ohio, see 28 U.S.C. § 115(a)(2); however, his underlying criminal convictions arose in Franklin County, and this Court therefore has jurisdiction over the case. “A state prisoner may file a § 2254 petition in ‘the district court for the district wherein such person is in custody or in the district court for the district within which the State court was held which convicted and sentenced him.'” Graves v. Bradshaw, No. 1:14-cv-2697, 2016 WL 8846557, at *5 (N.D. Ohio June 30, 2016) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d)); see also Brock v. Warden, Ross Corr. Inst., No. 2:16-cv-843, 2018 WL 4442591, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 18, 2018) (same). Petitioner's claim that the Bureau of Sentence Computation of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”) has miscalculated his sentence, however, does not provide him a basis for relief.

         The Ohio Supreme Court rejected this claim as follows:

         {¶ 2} In 1989, Hunley pleaded guilty to robbery and was sentenced to 3 to 15 years in prison. Hunley was paroled in 1992, but later that year, he again pleaded guilty to robbery and was sentenced to 3 to 15 years in prison. He was paroled a second time in 1997.

         {¶ 3} In 2008, Hunley pleaded guilty in three separate cases in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. In these cases, the court imposed concurrent sentences of ten months in prison for forgery and two six-year terms for robbery. The trial court also sentenced Henley to two three-year prison terms for gun specifications, to run consecutively to the other sentences.

         {¶ 4} On June 17, 2015, Hunley filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus and/or procedendo in the Tenth District Court of Appeals, arguing that his maximum sentence should expire in 2019 instead of 2025 (as DRC had calculated) because his 1989 and 1992 sentences should run concurrently. The magistrate recommended denying the writ, concluding that the two 3-to-15-year sentences were to be served consecutively. Hunley did not file objections to the magistrate's decision. The court of appeals adopted the magistrate's decision and held that DRC correctly determined that because the trial court's 1992 judgment entry is silent on the issue, it is presumed that the 1989 and 1992 sentences are consecutive.

         Legal Analysis

{¶ 5} Pursuant to Civ. R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv), we review the record for plain error because Hunley failed to file written objections to the magistrate's decision and thus waived any challenge to the court of appeals' adoption of the magistrate's findings of fact and conclusions of law. State ex rel. ...

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.