935 F.2d 269 (6th Cir. 1991), 90-3791, Crenshaw v. Tate
|Citation:||935 F.2d 269|
|Party Name:||Donald CRENSHAW, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Arthur TATE, Jr., Supt., Respondent-Appellee.|
|Case Date:||June 04, 1991|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit|
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 (See FI CTA6 Rule 28 and FI CTA6 IOP 206 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
No. 88-00175; Weber, J.
Before KENNEDY, BOYCE F. MARTIN, Jr. and SUHRHEINRICH Circuit Judges.
This pro se Ohio prisoner appeals the district court's judgment dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on the appeal. The appeal 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).
Following a bench trial, Donald Crenshaw was convicted on two counts of receiving stolen property and five counts of trafficking in drugs. He was sentenced to consecutive terms on each count totaling eighteen to sixty-five years imprisonment.
On direct appeal, Crenshaw argued that certain evidence was gained through an unconstitutional search and seizure and that the conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the First Appellate District. The Ohio Supreme Court denied Crenshaw's motion for leave to appeal the decision of the court of appeals.
In his first motion for post-conviction relief, Crenshaw claimed that the imposition of consecutive sentences violated constitutional protections against double jeopardy. The trial court found that the claim should have been raised on direct appeal and denied the motion. On appeal, the trial court's judgment was affirmed.
Crenshaw filed a second motion for post-conviction relief. He again argued that the convictions for multiple counts of trafficking and receiving stolen property should have resulted in a single sentence and not separate, consecutive sentences. He also asserted a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The petition for post-conviction relief was denied on grounds of res judicata. The denial was affirmed on appeal, and the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed his motion for...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP