United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division, Dayton
M. Rose District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Michael R. Merz United States Magistrate Judge
a habeas corpus action, brought pro se by Petitioner
Aaron Moten under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Motes seeks relief
from his 144-month sentence imposed in the Clark County,
Ohio, Court of Common Pleas upon his conviction on four
drug-related felonies. As with all post-conviction remedies
cases filed at this seat of Court, the case has been referred
to the undersigned under General Order Day 13-01.
habeas corpus filings are subject to review under Rule 4 of
the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, which provides that:
The clerk must promptly forward the petition to a judge under
the court's assignment procedure, and the judge must
promptly examine it. If it plainly appears from the petition
and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled
to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the
petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.
pleading guilty pursuant to a plea agreement and being
sentenced, Moten appealed to the Second District Court of
Appeals which affirmed the convictions and sentence.
State v. Moten, 2nd Dist. Clark Nos.
2018-CA-19, 2018-CA-20, 2019-Ohio-1473 (Apr. 19, 2019). The
Supreme Court of Ohio then declined to exercise jurisdiction.
State v. Moten, 156 Ohio St.3d 1447, 2019-Ohio-2498.
Moten thereafter filed the instant habeas Petition within the
time allowed by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) (ECF No. 1).
pleads two grounds for relief:
Ground One: Merger of Single Animus (Allied
Supporting Facts: Petitioner contends that
the trial court erred by sentencing him in Case 17CR-447 for
both trafficking in drugs and illegal conveyance of drugs,
offenses that should merged his sentence in violation of RC
[Ohio Revised Code §] 2941.25.
Ground Two: Ineffective Assistance of
Counsel for Acquiescing to a prison sentence.
Supporting Facts: Trial counsel made the
following statement during the sentence hears that
“Obviously (Moten) is going to be sent to prison
today.” Counsel purpsterdly [sic] bolstered the
presumption of a prison sentence by indicating Petitioner
looked [sic] remorse, and that he was more likely to
(Petition, ECF No. 1, PageID 5, 7.)
One: Allied Offenses of Similar Import
raised his First Ground for Relief as his First Assignment of
Error on direct appeal and the Second District decided that
claim against him. Moten pleads the same claim again here,
but it is not a claim upon which federal habeas corpus relief
can be granted. Federal habeas corpus is available only to
correct federal constitutional violations. 28 U.S.C. §
2254(a); Wilson v. Corcoran,562 U.S. 1 (2010);
Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990); Barclay
v. Florida,463 U.S. 939 (1983); Smith v.
Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (1982). “[I]t is not the
province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state court
determinations on state law questions. In conducting habeas
review, a federal court is limited to deciding whether a
conviction violated the Constitution, laws, or treaties of
the United ...