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.

Wooden v. Marquis

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio

August 20, 2019

John L. Wooden, Petitioner,
v.
Warden David Marquis, Respondent

          William Baughman, Magistrate Judge

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          PAMELA A. BARKER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

         This 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. 13.)

         For the 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.

         I. Procedural History

         A. State Court Proceedings

         On May 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).[1] (Doc. No. 11-1, Exh. 10.)

         The 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.)

         On June 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 neighborhood."
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.)

         On 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).

         Wooden 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.[2] (Doc. No. 11-1, Exh. 17.)

         B. First Federal Habeas Petition

         On 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 offense.
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.)

         On 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 ...


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.