Bonnell v. Mitchel, No. 00CV250.

• Decision Date: 04 February 2004
• Docket Number: No. 00CV250.
• Citation: 301 F.Supp.2d 698
• Parties: Melvin BONNELL, Petitioner, v. Betty MITCHEL, Warden, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio

301 F.Supp.2d 698

Melvin BONNELL, Petitioner, v.Betty MITCHEL, Warden, Respondent.

No. 00CV250.

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division.

February 4, 2004.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Laurence E. Komp, Ballwin, MO, Alan M. Freedman, Midwest Center for Justice, Evanston, IL, for petitioner.

Jon W. Oebker, Office Of The Prosecuting Attorney, Charles L. Wille, Office Of The Attorney General, Columbus, OH, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

KATZ, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Melvin Bonnell's Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By A Person In State Custody(Docket # 12)(the "Petition").Bonnell alleges twenty grounds for relief in his Petition.

Also before the Court are Respondent's Return of Writ (Docket # 31)("ROW"), Bonnell's Traverse To Respondent's Return Of Writ and request for evidentiary hearing(Docket # 54)("Traverse") and Respondent's Sur Reply and opposition to evidentiary hearing (Docket # 56).

For the reasons which follow, the Court denies the Petition.

I.INTRODUCTION

Appellant, Bonnell, appeals from his convictions and sentence of death for the aggravated murder of Robert Eugene Bunner.

II.FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The facts as stated by the Ohio Supreme Court are as follows:

Shirley Hatch, Edward Birmingham and Robert Eugene Bunner shared an apartment on Bridge Avenue in Cleveland, Ohio.On November 28, 1987, at approximately 3:00 a.m., Hatch heard someone knock at the kitchen door of the apartment.Hatch asked who was at the door and a voice replied, "Charles."Bunner opened the door and appellant, Melvin Bonnell, entered the apartment and closed the door behind him.Appellant uttered an expletive directed at Bunner and then proceeded to fire two gunshots at Bunner at close range.Bunner fell to the floor and Hatch, who had witnessed the shooting, ran to a bedroom where Birmingham was sleeping.Hatch heard two more gunshots, awoke Birmingham to tell him that Bunner had been shot, and then fled from the apartment to call paramedics.Birmingham went to the kitchen.

Upon entering the kitchen, Birmingham observed appellant who was on top of Bunner "* * * pounding him in the face."Birmingham also observed bullet holes in Bunner's body.Birmingham grabbed appellant and ejected him from the apartment.

At approximately 3:40 a.m., two Cleveland police officers were patrolling Bridge Avenue in a police cruiser when they observed a blue vehicle being driven backwards on Bridge Avenue with its headlights off.The officers attempted to stop the vehicle, and a high-speed chase ensued when the driver of the vehicle failed to stop.During the chase, the officers never lost sight of the vehicle except, perhaps, for a few seconds.The officers never saw anyone in the vehicle except the driver.No one exited the vehicle during the chase.The chase ended when the driver of the blue vehicle crashed into the side of a funeral chapel.The officers removed the driver from the vehicle and placed him on the ground.Both officers identified appellant as the driver of the vehicle.

Shortly after the accident, Cleveland police Officers Stansic and Kukula arrived at the crash site and saw a man lying on the ground with police officers standing over him.However, Officers Stansic and Kukula left the accident scene almost immediately thereafter in response to a radio call regarding the shooting at the Bridge Avenue apartment.

Upon arriving at the apartment, officers Stansic and Kukula interviewed Hatch and Birmingham who provided the officers with a description of Bunner's assailant.The officers recognized the witnesses' description as meeting the description of the man they had observed at the accident scene.The officers asked Birmingham to accompany them to the hospital where the man had been transported following the accident.At the hospital, Birmingham identified appellant as Bunner's assailant.

Bunner died as a result of a gunshot wound to the chest.An autopsy revealed that Bunner was shot twice, once in the chest and once in the pubic region.Both bullets were recovered from the body.

Police officers retraced the chase scene and found a .25 caliber automatic pistol which was later identified as appellant's.The weapon was test-fired and the test bullets were compared to the bullets found in Bunner's body.The test bullets and the bullets retrieved from Bunner's body had the same characteristics, and test casings matched spent bullet casings found at the murder scene.

Appellant was tried before a jury for the aggravated murder of Robert Bunner and for the commission of an aggravated burglary.The jury found appellant guilty on one count of aggravated burglary, one count of aggravated (felony) murder, and one count of aggravated murder ... with prior calculation and design, causing Bunner's death.In addition, appellant was found guilty of a death penalty specification in connection with each count of aggravated murder.For each count of aggravated murder, the trial judge, following the jury's recommendation, imposed a sentence of death.The court of appeals affirmed the convictions and death penalty.

State v. Bonnell,61 Ohio St.3d 179, 573 N.E.2d 1082(1991).

III.PROCEDURAL HISTORY

After a trial, a Cuyahoga jury found Bonnell guilty of: one count of aggravated murder with a firearm specification; one count of felony murder, with firearm and aggravated burglary specifications; and one count of aggravated murder with firearm and aggravated burglary specifications, all counts arising from the shooting death of Bunner.

Following the sentencing phase of trial, the jury recommended, and the trial court imposed a death sentence for each of the aggravated murder counts.

A.Direct Appeal

Bonnell's direct appeal of his conviction and sentence to the Ohio Court of Appeals raised the following grounds of error:

I.THIS APPELLATE COURT HAS ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT BONNELL BY LIMITING THE APPELLANT'S BRIEF TO EIGHTY-FIVE PAGES THEREBY DENYING APPELLANT DUE PROCESS, EQUAL PROTECTION AND EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AS GUARANTEED BY THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONANDSECTIONS 2,10, AND16, ARTICLE I OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.

II.THE VERDICT IN APPELLANT'S CASE WAS ERRONEOUS BECAUSE IT WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT TRIAL, THEREBY VIOLATING MR. BONNELL'S RIGHTS SECURED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONANDSECTION 16, ARTICLE I OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.

III.THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING BONNELL'S CRIMINAL

RULE 29MOTION FOR ACQUITTAL WHERE THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A CONVICTION, THEREBY VIOLATING DEFENDANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTANDSECTION 16, ARTICLE I OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.

IV.THE VERDICT IN APPELLANT'S CASE AS TO THE FINDING OF GUILT FOR THE AGGRAVATED BURGLARY WAS ERRONEOUS BECAUSE IT WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT TRIAL, THEREBY VIOLATING MR. BONNELL'S RIGHTS SECURED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONANDSECTION 16, ARTICLE I OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.

V.THE SUPPLEMENTAL JURY CHARGE GIVEN DURING THE PENALTY PHASE OF APPELLANT BONNELL'S TRIAL DEPRIVED BONNELL OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AS GUARANTEED BY THE SIXTH, EIGHTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, SECTIONS 5, 6, AND 16, ARTICLE I OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION ANDR.C. 2929.03.

VI.A JURY INSTRUCTION, GIVEN DURING THE PENALTY PHASE OF A CAPITAL TRIAL, STATING THAT JURORS "MUST NOT BE INFLUENCED BY ANY CONSIDERATION OF SYMPATHY * * *", VIOLATES THE EIGHTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONANDSECTIONS 9AND10, ARTICLE I OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.

VII.THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF MELVIN BONNELL BY INSTRUCTING THE JURY AT THE CLOSE OF MITIGATION AS TO CERTAIN MATTERS.THE INSTRUCTIONS DESTROYED THE RELIABILITY OF THE SENTENCING PROCEDURE IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH, SIXTH, EIGHTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONANDSECTIONS 2,9,10AND16, ARTICLE I OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.

VIII.THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF MELVIN BONNELL BY OFFERING COMMENTS AND INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY PRIOR TO THE START OF THE MITIGATING PHASE.THE COMMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS OFFERED, DESTROYED THE RELIABILITY OF THE SENTENCING PROCEDURE IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH, SIXTH, EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONANDSECTIONS 2,9,10, AND16, ARTICLE I OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.

IX.THE ARRAIGNMENT IN MR. BONNELL'S CASE WAS CONDUCTED WITHOUT COUNSEL AND IN VIOLATION OF OHIOCRIM.R. 10, THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONANDSECTION 10, ARTICLE I OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.

X.THE TRIAL COURT'S AND THE PROSECUTOR'S REPEATED COMMENTS TO THE JURY THAT THE JURY'S VERDICT WAS JUST A RECOMMENDATION, COUPLED WITH A JURY INSTRUCTION THAT STATED THE SAME, DIMINISHED THE JURY'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS DECISION AND MISLED THE JURY CONCERNING ITS KEY ROLE IN SENTENCING AND WAS

IN VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONANDSECTIONS 9AND16, ARTICLE I OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.

XI.THE STATE OF OHIO ERRED TO APPELLANT'S PREJUDICE WHEN IT FAILED TO PROVIDE THE DEFENSE WITH EXCULPATORY OR FAVORABLE EVIDENCE PRIOR TO TRIAL IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH, SIXTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONANDSECTIONS 10AND16, ARTICLE I OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.

XII.THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHICH APPELLANT RECEIVED THROUGHOUT HIS CAPITAL TRIAL RESULTED IN A DENIAL OF APPELLANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH, SIXTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONANDSECTIONS 5,10, AND16, ARTICLE I OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.

XIII.THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO COMPLY WITHRC....