12 F.3d 211 (6th Cir. 1993), 93-3420, Danzy v. Anderson

Docket Nº:93-3420.
Citation:12 F.3d 211
Party Name:Theophilus Tony DANZY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Carl ANDERSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Case Date:December 10, 1993
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Page 211

12 F.3d 211 (6th Cir. 1993)

Theophilus Tony DANZY, Petitioner-Appellant,


Carl ANDERSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 93-3420.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

December 10, 1993

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA6 Rule 28 and FI CTA6 IOP 206 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

N.D.Ohio, No. 93-07075; Don J. Young, J.



Before: KEITH and JONES, Circuit Judges, and BROWN, Senior Circuit Judge.


Theophilus Tony Danzy appeals a district court order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

In 1989, Danzy was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit aggravated murder, attempted aggravated murder, kidnapping, felonious assault, intimidation, and theft. The trial court sentenced Danzy to twelve to twenty-five years of imprisonment. Danzy filed an appeal to the Ohio Court of Appeals, which affirmed his conviction. Danzy initially sought further review by the Ohio Supreme Court, but voluntarily dismissed this appeal. Danzy also filed a petition requesting post-conviction relief in state court, which he also voluntarily dismissed.

Danzy then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal court, alleging that: 1) insufficient evidence existed to support his convictions, 2) the prosecution had not proven jurisdiction over his offenses, 3) the prosecution did not disclose materials favorable to Danzy, 4) the jury returned inconsistent verdicts, 5) Danzy received ineffective assistance of counsel, and 6) Danzy was deprived of a fair trial when the trial judge entered the jury room during deliberations. The district court determined that Danzy had not properly presented his issues to the Ohio state courts for review, had no remaining state court remedies, and, therefore, had procedurally defaulted his claims. As Danzy had not shown cause and prejudice to excuse this procedural default, the district...

To continue reading