United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
STEPHEN M. GARRISON, Petitioner,
DAVID GRAY, Warden, Belmont Correctional Institution, Respondent.
Algenon L. Marbley District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
MICHAEL R. MERZ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
habeas corpus case was brought by Petitioner Stephen M.
Garrison pro se pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to
obtain relief from his conviction in the Muskingum County,
Ohio, Court of Common Pleas on February 15, 2017 (Petition,
ECF No. 3, PageID 37, ¶¶ 1-2). On order of
Magistrate Judge Kimberly Jolson (ECF No. 2), the Respondent
has filed the State Court Record (ECF No. 7) and a Return of
Writ (ECF No. 8). The Magistrate Judge reference in the case
was recently transferred to the undersigned to help balance
the workload in the District (ECF No. 13). Petitioner filed a
Reply (ECF No. 14), and the Court ordered Respondent to
expand the record (ECF No. 15), which has now been done (ECF
No. 16), making the case ripe for decision.
was indicted by a Muskingum County, Ohio, grand jury on one
count of domestic violence with the specification that he had
two or more prior domestic violence convictions. Convicted by
a trial jury, he was sentenced to thirty-six months
imprisonment. He took a direct appeal to the Ohio Court of
Appeals, which affirmed the conviction and sentence.
State v. Garrison, 5th Dist. Muskingum
No. CT2017-18, 2018-Ohio-463, ¶¶ 6, 8, 64 (Feb. 2,
2018). Garrison did not timely appeal to the Supreme Court of
Ohio, and that court denied his motion for delayed appeal.
State v. Garrison, 153 Ohio St.3d 1429,
2018-Ohio-2418. Garrison next filed his Petition in this
Court, pleading the following grounds for relief:
The trial court erred by admitting State's Exhibits One
(1) through Five (5), in violation of Evid. R. 402. And 403,
and in violation of equivalent and corresponding federal
rules 402 and 403, as these exhibits did not accurately
depict the contents purported and is a violation
petitioner's right to a fair and impartial trial.
The trial court violated petitioner's rights protected by
the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to due process and the
right to a fair trial when the trial court neglected to
present the jury with jury instructions. Namely, the lesser
included offenses [specifically, disorderly conduct] and
self-defense when the evidence at trial warranted both.
Petitioner's [sic] was deprived of his constitutional
right to effective assistance of counsel in direct violation
of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and
made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth
Amendment; in violation of Article 10, Section 1 of the Ohio
The petitioner's guilty verdict for domestic violence
does not meet the sufficiency of the evidence and is contrary
The trial court erred when it imposed the maximum consecutive
sentence of thirty six months in violation of the Sixth
Amendment as well as due process violations arising from the
trial court's failure to afford him the required