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.

Murray v. Collins

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

December 6, 2019

JOHN R. MURRAY, Petitioner,
v.
EMMA COLLINS[1], Warden, Pickaway Correctional Institution, Respondent.

          James L. Graham District Judge.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

          Michael R. Merz United States Magistrate Judge.

         With the assistance of counsel, Petitioner John Murray brought this habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to obtain relief from his conviction in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County on three counts of aggravated trafficking in Oxycodone and one count of aggravated possession of drugs (Petition, ECF No. 1, PageID 2, ¶ 5.) The case is ripe for decision on the merits on the Petition, the State Court Record (ECF No. 5), the Return of Writ (ECF No. 6), and Petitioner's Reply (ECF No. 18).

         The Magistrate Judge reference in this case was recently transferred to the undersigned to help balance the Magistrate Judge workload in the District. The case remains assigned to District Judge Graham for final disposition.

         Litigation History

         Murray was indicted by the Franklin County grand jury on drug charges. In September 2015 a jury found him guilty of three counts of aggravated trafficking in drugs and one count of the lesser-included offense of possession of drugs. He was then sentenced to an aggregate term of eight years' imprisonment. On direct appeal the Tenth District (Franklin County) Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. State v. Murray, 2017-Ohio-949 (10th Dist. Mar. 16, 2017), appellate jurisdiction declined, 2017-Ohio-8842 (Dec. 6, 2017). After the Supreme Court of Ohio denied, review, Murray filed the instant Petition on raising one ground for relief:

Ground One: Petitioner was deprived of his 6th and 14th Amendment rights to the effective assistance of counsel due to the deficient performance of counsel.
Supporting Facts: Counsel was unprepared for trial of this matter, asserting and/or trying to present irrelevant evidence, failed to assess issues regarding Petitioner's competency and/or sanity, failing to understand basic defense principles, failed and/or did not completely evaulte [sic] the evidence against Petitioner, failed to advise properly regarding the offer made prior to trial, and failed to negotiate a plea resolution with the prosecutor, all of which contributed to Petitioner's detriment.

(Petition, ECF No. 1, PageID 6.)

         Analysis

         In his sole Ground for Relief, Murray claims he received constitutionally ineffective assistance of trial counsel, alleging several ways in which counsel allegedly performed deficiently. The Petition asserts that this claim was raised on direct appeal (Petition, ECF No. 1, PageID 7). Respondent asserts that the only portion of this ground for relief raised on appeal was that” trial counsel presented an irrelevant and legally impermissible defense.” (Return, ECF No. 6, PageID 1556). As a result, Respondent asserts the other sub-claims are either unexhausted or procedurally defaulted[.]” Id. at PageID 1556-57. Petitioner's Reply asserts (without citation to the record) that “[t]he issue of ineffective assistance of counsel was raised in both Plaintiff's direct appeal and his Motion in Support of Jurisdiction to the Ohio Supreme Court. Therefore, the matter is exhausted for purpose of habeas review.” (ECF No. 18, PageID 1583).

         The Appealed Ineffective Assistance Claim

         On appeal to the Tenth District, Murray's ineffective assistance of trial counsel assignment of error reads

Appellant's counsel was ineffective in two primary ways. One, she presented an irrelevant and legally impermissible defense despite being warned by the court before-hand that she could not present such a defense. Two, she elicited unnecessary character evidence from defense witnesses knowing ...

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.