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.

Payton v. Shoop

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

August 14, 2019

DANIEL G. PAYTON, Petitioner,
v.
TIM SHOOP, WARDEN, CHILLICOTHE CORRECTIONAL INST., Respondent.

          EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR. CHIEF JUDGE.

          ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          CHELSEY M. VASCURA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         This is an action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner seeks release from confinement imposed pursuant to a state-court judgment in a criminal action. This 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 the United States Magistrate Judges.

         Petitioner has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 1.) Upon consideration, the undersigned finds the motion to be meritorious, and it is GRANTED. Petitioner shall be PERMITTED to prosecute this action without prepayment of fees or costs and judicial officers who render services in this action will do so as if costs had been prepaid.

         Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Court (“Rule 4”), this Court must conduct a preliminary review to determine whether “it plainly appears from the face of 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 that 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). Here, for the reasons that follow, it plainly appears from the face of the petition that Petitioner is not entitled to relief, as this action is barred by the one-year statute of limitations provided for under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). It is therefore RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed.

         I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         Petitioner challenges his February 22, 2006 convictions pursuant to his guilty plea in the Fayette County Court of Common Pleas on aggravated murder and kidnapping. In a Judgment Entry filed on March 14, 2006, the trial court sentenced him pursuant to the agreement of the parties to an aggregate term of thirty years to life. (Petition, ECF No. 1-1, PAGEID # 14, 20; Judgment Entry of Sentence, ECF No. 1-1, PAGEID # 41.) Petitioner did not file an appeal. In October 2016, Petitioner filed a “Verified Motion to Correct Sentence” or petition for post-conviction relief. (Petition, ECF No. 1-1, PAGEID # 17.) On April 20, 2017, the trial court denied that motion. (Entry, ECF No. 1-1, PAGEID # 18.) On December 11, 2017, the appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. (Judgment Entry, ECF No. 1-1, PAGEID # 45.) On May 9, 2018, the Ohio Supreme Court declined to accept jurisdiction of the appeal. (Entry, ECF No. 1-1, PAGEID # 40.)

         On July 29, 2019, Petitioner executed this habeas corpus petition. (PAGEID # 29.) He asserts that police illegally obtained his confession, in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (claim one); that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel (claim two); and that his convictions violate due process (claim three). Plainly, however, the one-year statute of limitations bars this Court's consideration of his claims.

         II. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

         The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), which became effective on April 24, 1996, imposes a one-year statute of limitations on the filing of habeas corpus petitions. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). The statute provides:

(d)(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of-
(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;
(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;
(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made ...

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.