Carter v. Mitchell
Decision Date | 13 July 2016 |
Docket Number | No. 13-3996,13-3996 |
Citation | 829 F.3d 455 |
Parties | Cedric Carter, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Betty Mitchell, Warden, Respondent–Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
ARGUED: Keith A. Yeazel, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant. Thomas E. Madden, Office of the Ohio Attorney General, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Keith A. Yeazel, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant. Thomas E. Madden, Jocelyn S. Kelly, Office of the Ohio Attorney General, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee.
Before: COLE, Chief Judge; CLAY and SUTTON, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Cedric Carter, who was convicted and sentenced to death by an Ohio jury in 1992, appeals the order of the district court denying him a writ of habeas corpus, which he had sought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and denying him a stay of the federal habeas proceedings. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM.
In its decision affirming Carter's conviction and sentence on direct appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court described the facts giving rise to this case as follows:
State v. Carter , 72 Ohio St.3d 545, 651 N.E.2d 965, 969–70 (Ohio 1995).
Carter's trial
A jury in the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, Ohio found Carter guilty of aggravated murder on July 11, 1992. Four days later, the jury recommended a death sentence. The trial court adopted the jury's recommendation and sentenced Carter to death on July 30, 1992.
Prior to trial, Carter was referred to specialists to determine whether he was competent to stand trial, or was not guilty by reason of insanity. The evaluations, which were sent to the prosecution as well as the defense by order of the trial court, indicated “malingering to avoid prosecution” and mentioned Carter's drug use and past abuse of women and included graphic descriptions of his cruelty to animals. (J.A. vol. 3, p. 938.) The defense requested the appointment of Dr. David Chiappone, a psychologist affiliated with the court clinic, as a mitigation expert. Dr. Chiappone's assistant, a social worker named Edward Wantuck, conducted extensive interviews with Carter's family and friends, but the summaries of these conversations (the “Wantuck reports”), were never given to the jury or introduced in any state proceeding. By the time of his mitigation presentation at the sentencing phase of the trial, Dr. Chiappone had been in contact with trial counsel for some two months, and had spent approximately five hours with Carter. Dr. Chiappone estimated that he had previously testified as a mitigation expert in six or seven capital trials.
At the sentencing phase, trial counsel called Richard Spaulding, Carter's stepfather, who had known Carter for about three years, as a mitigation witness, but did not call Carter's mother. Carter then read an unsworn statement expressing remorse. Dr. Chiappone was the final witness for the defense. On direct examination, trial counsel had Dr. Chiappone present a psychological portrait that included some of the trauma that Carter had experienced during childhood, but also touched on his drug use, abuse of women, interest in violence, and animal cruelty. Dr. Chiappone evidently was hard to hear, at least initially. At various points early in his testimony, jurors raised their hands to signal to the court that they could not hear the witness. During deliberations, the jury requested a transcript of Dr. Chiappone's testimony, which the court denied. The jury recommended a death sentence on July 15, 1992.
Post-trial state court proceedings
Carter took his initial direct appeal to the Ohio Court of Appeals, which affirmed his conviction and sentence. State v. Carter , No. C–920604, 1993 WL 512859 (Ohio Ct. App. Nov. 3, 1993). The Ohio Supreme Court also affirmed Carter's conviction and sentence. Carter , 651 N.E.2d at 980. The United States Supreme Court subsequently denied certiorari. Carter v. Ohio , 516 U.S. 1014, 116 S.Ct. 575, 133 L.Ed.2d 498 (1995).
Carter filed his first state post-conviction petition in 1996, which was denied. The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of relief, State v. Carter , No. C–960718, 1997 WL 705487 (Ohio Ct. App. Nov. 14, 1997), and the Ohio Supreme Court declined to hear the case because it did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ray v. Bauman
...). That standard applies "even when a state court does not explain the reasoning behind its denial of relief." Carter v. Mitchell , 829 F.3d 455, 468 (6th Cir. 2016). That is the review standard this Court applied to Ray's Cronic claim the first time around. The court of appeals in this cas......
-
Mammone v. Jenkins
...same evidence available to the defense at trial - does not mean his claim is unexhausted. As the Circuit explained in Carter v. Mitchell, 829 F.3d 455, 469 (6th Cir. 2016), "[a]llowing a petitioner periodically to discover (or rediscover) information about himself would frustrate [AEDPA's p......
-
Leonard v. Warden, Ohio State Penitentiary
...relief. Counsels traditionally enjoy "discretion over deciding which witnesses to call and how to examine them." Carter v. Mitchell , 829 F.3d 455, 471 (6th Cir.2016) (citation omitted). Accord Rayborn v. United States , 489 Fed.Appx. 871, 878 (6th Cir. 2012) ("[w]hether to call a witness a......
-
McGowan v. Christiansen, Civil No. 2:09-CV-14539
...examining the entire order or opinion, to determine whether and how the court of appeals intended to limit a remand." Carter v. Mitchell , 829 F.3d 455, 463 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting Scott v. Churchill , 377 F.3d 565, 570 (6th Cir. 2004) ). Although petitioner did not raise a Brady claim in ......