782 F.2d 1041 (6th Cir. 1985), 84-3311, Benedum v. Perini

Docket Nº:84-3311
Citation:782 F.2d 1041
Party Name:DONALD O. BENEDUM, Petitioner-Appellant v. E. P. PERINI, SUPERINTENDENT, Respondent-Appellee.
Case Date:December 09, 1985
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Page 1041

782 F.2d 1041 (6th Cir. 1985)

DONALD O. BENEDUM, Petitioner-Appellant


E. P. PERINI, SUPERINTENDENT, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 84-3311

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

December 9, 1985

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 (See FI CTA6 Rule 28 and FI CTA6 IOP 206 regarding use of unpublished opinions)




BEFORE: LIVELY, Chief Judge; MERRITT and JONES, Circuit Judges.

This matter is before the Court upon consideration of petitioner's appeal from the district court's judgment denying habeas corpus relief. The case has been referred to a panel of the Court pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 9(a). Upon consideration of the documents filed on appeal and the certified record including the transcript, the panel agrees unanimously that oral argument is not needed. Rule 34(a), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Petitioner is serving consecutive terms for aggravated burglary, receiving stolen property, assault and felonious assault. On direct appeal, the Ohio Court of Appeals rejected petitioner's claim of an involuntary confession and affirmed his conviction. Petitioner did not appeal his conviction to the Ohio Supreme Court. Subsequently, petitioner pursued post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court held that petitioner's claim lacked sufficient factual support, and dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner appealed to the Ohio Court of Appeals alleging that the trial court erred. The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. The Ohio Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of a substantial constitutional question. Petitioner then filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition in the district court alleging four instances of ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied relief based on a finding that counsel was effective. Petitioner appealed to this Court adopting his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, but arguing a sole issue, that the court erred by admitting his alleged involuntary statement into evidence.

The petitioner has not exhausted state remedies on his claim that his involuntary statement was improperly admitted into evidence, and he thus cannot assert that claim in this petition. Rose v. Lundy...

To continue reading