Bailey v. Erdos
| Decision Date | 01 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | 1:19-CV-02409-BYP |
| Parties | ANTHONY BAILEY, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN RONALD ERDOS, Defendant, |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Anthony Bailey[1] (“Bailey”) seeks a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF Doc. 3). Bailey, an Ohio inmate,[2] is currently serving a prison sentence for receiving stolen property, burglary, theft, and having weapons while under disability. Respondent, Warden Ronald Erdos (“Respondent”),[3] filed a Return of Writ. (ECF Doc. 12). Bailey filed a Traverse. (ECF Doc. 13). The matter is before me[4] by an automatic order of reference under Local Rule 72.2 for preparation of a report and recommendation on Bailey's petition and other case-dispositive motions. For the reasons set forth below, I RECOMMEND that the Court DENY and/or DISMISS Bailey's Petition. I also RECOMMEND that Tim McConahay, the Warden of the Mansfield Correctional Institution-where Bailey is currently housed-should be substituted for Ronald Erdos as the Respondent in this case.
In 1985, Bailey pled guilty to an amended indictment and was convicted of one count of burglary, in violation of R.C. § 2911.12, and one count of theft, in violation of R.C. § 2913.02, in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. (ECF Doc. 12-1, Ex. 1, PageID#80). As part of the plea bargain, Bailey also pled guilty to one count of receiving stolen property, in violation of R.C. § 2913.51, in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR-85-202704. (Id. at 82). On November 21, 1985, the trial court sentenced Bailey to a one-year term of imprisonment on the theft conviction, a three to 15-year term of imprisonment on the burglary conviction, and a one-year term of imprisonment for the receiving stolen property conviction. (Id.). The court ordered these sentences to be served concurrently. (Id. at 83).
On August 11, 1989, Bailey was released on parole. (Id., Ex. 2, PageID#84). The maximum expiration of his sentence was September 16, 2000. (Id.). However, Bailey committed additional crimes while on parole. After a jury trial, Bailey was convicted on one count of receiving stolen property, in violation of R.C. § 2913.51, and one count of having weapons while under disability, in violation of R.C. § 2923.13, each with firearm specifications, in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR-89-244462. (Id., Ex. 3, PageID#86). On April 30, 1990, the trial court sentenced Bailey to a two to 10-year term of imprisonment on the receiving stolen property offense, to be served consecutive to a two to five-year term of imprisonment for having weapons while under disability. (Id.). Bailey's aggregate sentence was four to 15 years imprisonment, plus an additional three years imprisonment for the firearm specification. (See id). The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed Bailey's conviction on direct review. State v. West, No. 59936, 1992 Ohio App. LEXIS 1219 (Mar. 19, 1992).
On September 1, 1995, Bailey was released on parole. (Id., Ex. 2, PageID#84). The 15-year maximum sentence, along with the three-year consecutive firearm specification from his 1990 charges in Case No. CR-89-244462, were added to Bailey's previous maximum sentence expiration date, resulting in a new maximum sentence expiration date of September 12, 2018. (Id.). On September 3, 1996, Bailey was declared a parole violator at large. (Id.). After Bailey's arrest on October 5, 1996, the Adult Parole Authority (“APA”) added 32 days of lost time, resulting in a maximum sentence expiration date of October 14, 2018. (Id.).
Subsequently, Bailey pled guilty to and was convicted for one count of receiving stolen property, in violation of R.C. § 2913.51, in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR-96-341621. On December 9, 1996, the trial court sentenced Bailey to a one-year term of imprisonment. (Id., Ex. 4, PageID#87). Pursuant to then-existing R.C. § 2929.141(B), this sentence was to run consecutive to Bailey's previous sentences, resulting in a new maximum sentence expiration date of June 27, 2019. (Id., Ex. 2, PageID#85).
On May 19, 2003, Bailey was released on parole. (Id., Ex. 5, PageID#89). Less than three months later, he was arrested by the Macedonia Police Department for armed bank robbery on August 1, 2003. (Id., Ex. 2, PageID#85). While awaiting sentencing on the armed bank robbery charge, Bailey was housed in the Ashtabula County Jail and attempted to escape. (ECF Doc. 121, Ex. 10, PageID#102). Bailey was charged with one count of escape in the Northern District of Ohio in Case No. 04-CR-057. Subsequently, Bailey was convicted of one count of armed bank robbery in the Northern District of Ohio and sentenced to a 146-month term of imprisonment in the United States Bureau of Prisons, BOP. (Id.at 90). Additionally, Bailey was sentenced to 51 months in federal prison for escape, which was to run concurrent with his 146-month sentence for armed bank robbery.
At the conclusion of his federal sentence, the BOP returned Bailey to state custody on August 5, 2015. (Id., Ex. 7, PageID#95). The APA classified his parole status to a parole violator in custody. (Id.). On August 12, 2015, Bailey was provided and signed the notification of his parole revocation hearing, in which he was informed of the conditions of supervision he violated and apprised of his rights regarding his revocation hearing. (Id., Ex. 8, PageID#96). Significantly, Bailey admitted to violating Rule 1 of his conditions of release. (See id. at 97). He also signed the form acknowledging that he received the notice of the revocation hearing. (Id. at 98). Due to the unavailability of the parole office, his originally scheduled hearing for September 1, 2015, was continued for two weeks. (Id., Ex. 9, PageID#99).
On September 16, 2015, the Parole Board held a revocation hearing, and Bailey was represented by counsel. (Id., Ex. 10, PageID#101). The Parole Board determined that Bailey had admitted to violating Rule 1 of his conditions of release and dismissed the other violations. (Id.). The Hearing Officer recommended that Bailey be ordered to serve 48 months for his parole violations before becoming eligible for consideration to be released on parole, and the Parole Board issued a Revocation Order summarizing the evidentiary findings and the rationale for revoking Bailey's parole. (Id., Ex. 11, PageID#103). Bailey refused to sign his copy of the Sanction Receipt notifying him of his parole revocation. (Id., Ex. 12, PageID#104). However, on September 25, 2015, he did sign a copy of the Sanction Receipt. (Id., Ex. 13, PageID#105). Bailey received 4,386 days of lost time by the APA, resulting in a new maximum expiration of sentence of June 30, 2031. (Id., Ex. 2, PageID#85).
On September 19, 2018, Bailey, pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Madison County Court of Common Pleas. He alleged that his due process rights were violated because he was never declared a parole violator, and he was not afforded a parole revocation hearing. (ECF Doc. 12-1, Ex. 14, PageID#109-13). Bailey also challenged his sentence computation. (Id. at 113). Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment. (Id., Ex. 15, PageID#125-35). Bailey filed a reply brief. (Id., Ex. 16, PageID#139-55). On January 28, 2019, the court granted Respondent's motion for summary judgment, finding that Bailey failed to comply with the requirements of R.C. § 2725.04(D) and 2969.25(C). (Id., Ex. 17, PageID#156). Bailey did not appeal to the Ohio Court of Appeals.
On June 7, 2019, Bailey, pro se, instead filed another state habeas petition in the Ohio Supreme Court. He again raised the same claims challenging his maximum aggregated sentence that he made in his first habeas petition before the Madison County Court of Common Pleas, i.e., that he never violated the conditions of his parole supervision, he was never declared a parole violator, and he was never afforded a hearing to determine whether he violated his parole conditions. (Id., Ex. 18, PageID#157-59). On August 21, 2019, the Ohio Supreme Court sua sponte dismissed his petition as meritless. (Id., Ex. 19, PageID#170).
To continue reading
Request your trial