United States District Court, N.D. Ohio
John L. Wooden, Petitioner,
Warden David Marquis, Respondent
William Baughman, Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
A. BARKER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court upon the Report &
Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge
William Baughman, Jr. (Doc. No. 12), which recommends
granting the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Petitioner
John L. Wooden's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc.
No. 11) and dismissing the Petition as time-barred.
Petitioner has filed Objections to the R&R. (Doc. No.
following reasons, the Court finds Petitioner's
Objections to be well-taken in part. The Court, therefore,
declines to accept the reasoning set forth in the R&R.
However, the Court concludes that the Petition is nonetheless
time-barred for the reasons set forth below. Respondent's
Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 11) is, therefore, GRANTED and
the Petition is DISMISSED.
State Court Proceedings
1, 2002, a Summit County jury found Wooden guilty of two
counts of rape in violation of Ohio Rev. Code §
2907.02(A)(2); two counts of kidnapping in violation of Ohio
Rev. Code § 2905.01(A)(4); two counts of gross sexual
imposition in violation of Ohio Rev. Code §
2907.05(A)(1); and one count of attempted rape in violation
of Ohio Rev. Code §§ 2923.02 and
2907.02(A)(2). (Doc. No. 11-1, Exh. 10.)
state trial court conducted a sentencing hearing on May 13,
2002, at which time Wooden was sentenced to an aggregate term
of imprisonment of twenty-nine (29) years. (Id.) In
addition, the state trial court ordered as followed:
“After release from prison, Defendant is ordered
subject to post-release control to the extent the parole
board may determine as provided by law.” (Id.)
11, 2002, through counsel, Wooden filed a notice of appeal to
the Court of Appeals for the Ninth District of Ohio
(hereinafter “state appellate court”). (Doc. No.
11-1, Exh. 12.) In his merit brief, Wooden raised the
following seven grounds for relief:
I. The conviction of the appellant for the charges of
Kidnapping (2 cts), Gross Sexual Imposition (2 cts), Rape (2
cts), and Attempted Rape (1 ct) in this case are against the
manifest weight of the evidence and should be reversed.
II. The Trial Court incorrectly denied appellant's motion
for acquittal in violation of Criminal Rule 29; specifically,
there was not sufficient evidence to prove the offenses of
Kidnapping, Rape, Gross Sexual Imposition and Attempted Rape
beyond a reasonable doubt and submit them to a jury.
III. The Trial Court erred to the prejudice of appellant and
in violation of Criminal Rule 29(A), Article I, Section 10 of
the Ohio Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, when it denied
appellant's motion for acquittal.
IV. The Trial Court erred to the prejudice of the Appellant
when it denied his motion to allow the jury to consider the
lesser included offense of corruption of a minor.
V. The Trial Court erred to the prejudice of the appellant by
overruling his objections to the testimony of Detective
Irvine which alleged that he was "stalking girls in his
VI. The Trial Court erred to the prejudice of the appellant
in denying his motion for a mistrial.
VII. The Trial Court erred in sentencing the appellant to
consecutive terms of incarceration and improperly followed
the procedure in imposing the sentence pursuant to the felony
sentencing guidelines set forth in R.C. Chapter 2929.
(Doc. No. 11-1, Exh. 13.) The State filed a brief in
opposition. (Doc. No. 11-1, Exh. 14.)
April 16, 2003, the state appellate court affirmed the trial
court's judgment of conviction and sentence. (Doc. No.
11-1, Exh. 15.) See State v. Wooden, No. 21138, 2003
WL 1877631 (Ohio App. 9th Dist. April 16, 2003).
did not timely appeal the state appellate court's
decision. Rather, on November 24, 2003, Wooden filed a notice
of appeal and motion for leave to file a delayed appeal in
the Supreme Court of Ohio. (Doc. No. 11-1, Exh. 16.) On
December 24, 2003, the Supreme Court of Ohio denied
Wooden's motion for leave to file a delayed appeal and
dismissed the case. (Doc. No. 11-1, Exh. 17.)
First Federal Habeas Petition
April 9, 2004, proceeding pro se, Wooden filed his
first Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this Court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 11-1, Exh. 22.)
Therein, Wooden raised the following five grounds for relief:
I. Conviction was obtained by the weight of the evidence not
supporting the conviction obtained, violating due process.
II. The conviction was obtained with error from the trial
court not awarding petitioner a Rule 29 dismissal.
III. The conviction was obtained and the trial court erred
without allowing the jury to consider lesser included
IV. The conviction was obtained violating due process when
the trial court failed to grant motion for mis-trial.
V. The trial court erred when sentencing petitioner to
consecutive sentences in violation to the Revised Code.
(Doc. No. 11-1, Exh. 22.) See also Wooden v.
Bradshaw, No. 1:04cv676 (N.D. Ohio) (Doc. No. 1.)
March 24, 2006, Magistrate Judge Baughman issued a Report
& Recommendation that all of Wooden's grounds were
procedurally defaulted and the Petition should be denied.
(Doc. No. 11-1, Exh. 23.) Wooden failed to file objections
and, on April 17, 2006, District Judge Lesley Wells ...