Arthurs v. Warden, Warren Corr. Inst.
| Decision Date | 23 March 2012 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:11-cv-541 |
| Parties | JOHN ARTHURS, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, WARREN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
Petitioner, a state prisoner, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. This matter is before the Court on that petition, respondent's return of writ, the exhibits attached to the return, and petitioner's reply. For the reasons that follow, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that petitioner's claims be DISMISSED.
On December 12, 2007, a Franklin County, Ohio grand jury indicted petitioner and a co-defendant, John Lee Gibson, on five felony counts arising out of two aggravated robberies and the killing of one Terry Salmons during the course of a robbery. The offenses allegedly occurred on December 2, 2007. The indictment contained two counts of aggravated robbery with firearm specifications, one count of aggravated murder, one count of murder, and one count of having a weapon under a disability. The murder counts also were accompanied by specifications relating both tothe use of a firearm and to petitioner's status as a repeat offender. Return of Writ, Exhibit One.
Petitioner pleaded not guilty and the case went to trial. Petitioner waived his right to trial by jury on the weapon under a disability count, and the remaining counts were tried to a jury. On March 12, 2009, the jury convicted him of two counts of aggravated robbery and one count of murder, but acquitted him of aggravated murder. The trial judge separately found him guilty of having a weapon under a disability. On March 13, 2009 the trial judge sentenced him to thirteen years of imprisonment on each of the aggravated robbery counts (ten years plus three consecutive years for the firearm specification), fifteen years to life on the murder charge plus three years of consecutive prison time for its firearm specification and eight years of consecutive prison time for its repeat offender specification, and five years on the weapons count. The first two sentences were run concurrently to each other but consecutively to the sentence on the murder charge. Return of Writ, Exhibit Five. The sentences totaled forty-one years to life.
Petitioner timely appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Appellate District. He raised ten assignments of error:
Return of Writ, Exhibit Seven.
In a decision dated February 23, 2010, the Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed petitioner's conviction and sentence. State v. Arthurs, 2010 WL 628822 (Franklin Co. App. February 23, 2010). The Ohio Supreme Court subsequently denied review. State v. Arthurs, 125 Ohio St.3d 1464 (June 23, 2010).
On June 20, 2011, petitioner timely filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus inthis Court. In his petition, he has raised the same issues which were raised on appeal in the state courts, stating that "[t]he grounds raised in Petitioner (sic) direct appeal are the same grounds raised in this petition for a writ of habeas corpus." (Petition, at 2). However, they are phrased slightly differently; petitioner appears to have deleted any reference to state law grounds for relief, and has added some language indicating the federal constitutional basis for each claim to the extent that such a basis was not made explicit in his state court assignments of error. The Court will highlight any significant differences in its individual discussion of these claims.
It is respondent's position that the first claim for relief, to the extent that it attempts to raise a federal constitutional claim, was procedurally defaulted, and that the same is true for petitioner's second claim for relief. Respondent contends that the remainder of petitioner's claims lack merit.
The pertinent facts are stated in the state court of appeals' opinion as follows. These facts are presumed to be correct. See 28 U.S.C. §2254(e)(1); see also House v. Bell, 283 F.3d 37 (6th Cir.2002).
In recognition of the equal obligation of the state courts to protect the constitutional rights of criminal defendants, and in order to prevent needless friction between the state and federal courts, a state criminal defendant with federal constitutional claims is required fairly to present those claims to the highest court of the state for consideration. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c). If he fails to do so, but still has an avenue open to him by which he may present the claims, his petition is subject to dismissal for failure to exhaust state remedies. Id.; Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 6 (1982) (per curiam); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275-76 (1971). If, because of a procedural default, the petitioner can no longer present his claims to a state court, he has also waived them for purposes of federal habeas review unless he can demonstrate cause for the procedural default and actual prejudice resulting from the alleged constitutional error.Murray v. Carrier, 447 U.S. 478, 485 (1986); Engle v. Issac, 456 U.S. 107, 129 (1982); Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 87 (1977).
In the Sixth Circuit, a four-part analysis must be undertaken when the state argues that a federal habeas claim is precluded by the petitioner's failure to observe a state procedural rule. Maupin v. Smith, 785 F.2d 135, 138 (6th Cir.1986). "First, the court must determine that there is a state procedural rule that is applicable to the petitioner's claim and that the petitioner failed to comply with the rule." Id. Second, the Court must determine whether the state courts actually enforced the state procedural sanction. Id. Third, it must be decided whether the state procedural forfeiture is an adequate and independent state ground on which the state can rely to foreclose review of a federal constitutional claim. Id. Finally, if the Court has determined that a state procedural rule was not complied with and that the rule was an adequate and...
To continue reading
Request your trial