This case arises out of incidents that occurred at the Dayton Motor Hotel on May 15-16, 2005. In September 2005, the Montgomery County Grand Jury reindicted Brown on one count of aggravated robbery with a firearm specification, two counts of felonious assault with firearm specifications, one count of having weapon while under disability, one count of tampering with evidence, one count of kidnapping with a firearm specification, and one count of aggravated burglary with a firearm specification. (State Court Record, ECF No. 13, PageID 541.) At a jury trial in February 2006, Brown was convicted of both counts of felonious assault, aggravated burglary with the firearm specification, having weapons under disability, and tampering with evidence. Id. at PageID 556. After motions for new trial and acquittal were denied, Judge John Kessler, to whom the case was then assigned, sentenced Brown to a total of nineteen years of imprisonment.
Brown appealed to the Second District Court of Appeals which affirmed. State v. Brown, No. 21540, 2007-Ohio-2098, 2007 Ohio App. LEXIS 1954 (2nd Dist. Apr. 27, 2007), appellate jurisdiction declined, 115 Ohio St. 3d 1421 (2007).
In August 2007, Brown filed an application to reopen his direct appeal under Ohio R. App. P. 26(B) to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel based on the omission of seven assignments of error. The Second District denied the application as untimely and the Ohio Supreme Court denied review (State Court Record ECF No. 13, PageID 755-56; 804).
Several months later Brown filed a delayed petition for post-conviction relief under Ohio Revised Code § 2953.21. By this time Judge Kessler had retired and been replaced by Judge Mary Wiseman. She denied the post-conviction petition February 7, 2008 (Decision, State Court Record ECF No. 13, PageID 870-73). The Second District affirmed the denial and the Ohio Supreme Court again denied review. Id. at PageID 929-33, 969.
On December 22, 2008, Brown filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this Court, raising fifteen grounds for relief. Brown v. Brunsman, Case No. 3:08-cv-477 ("Brown I"). DistrictJudge Timothy Black dismissed the Petition and denied a certificate of appealability in May 2012 (Brown I, ECF No. 78). The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals also denied a certificate of appealability near the end of 2012, terminating the first habeas case.
From that point forward, Brown raised a number of claims in different ways generally addressing asserted deficiencies in the Common Pleas Court's judgment entry. The history of these efforts, all of which were made pro se, is detailed in the Return of Writ (ECF No. 14, PageID 2953-62). Only one of these efforts bore any fruit favorable to Brown's position: on appeal from denial of Brown's May 3, 2012, Motion to Vacate Void Judgment, the Second District held Judge Kessler had erred in failing to advise Brown orally of the five-year term of post-release control to which he would be subject when he completed his term of imprisonment. State v. Brown, No. 25653 (2nd Dist. Jun 13, 2014)(ECF No. 13, PageID 1567-78.) The case was remanded so that the oral advice could be given. Id. at PageID 1578. On July 11, 2014, Judge Wiseman gave Brown the required oral advice (Memorialized at State Court Record, ECF No. 13-3, PageID 2033-35). She also entered an Amended Termination Entry with the five-year PRC term in it. Id. at PageID 2029-32. Although Brown appealed, the Second District affirmed and the Ohio Supreme Court again denied review (State Court Record, ECF No. 13-3, PageID 2111-20, 2207).
Brown filed this, his second habeas corpus application, on March 9, 2017 (ECF No. 4). He pleads the following twenty-one grounds for relief:
Ground One: Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment Violation to a Speedy Trial and Speedy Sentencing.
Supporting Facts: Petitioner was arrested on July 11, 2005. Petitioner was indicted on August 9, 2005. Petitioner plead [sic] "not guilty" at a preliminary hearing. Petitioner Filed a motion to dismiss for speedy trial violation on December 9, 2005, however,the court denied the motion. Petitioners' [sic] trial was not complete until officially convicted and sentenced on July 11, 2014.
Ground Two: Petitioner was denied access to the Court in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendment.
Supporting Facts: Petitioner signed a cash slip for postage and deposited said cash slip and Notice of Appeal into the institutional mail system, however, said notice of appeal did not make it to the court in a timely fashion. Once Petitioner placed the mail in the mail system it was out of his hands. Nevertheless, Petitioner lost his right to appeal the trial court's decision and entry.
Ground Three: Petitioner was denied his rights to the Clauses of Due Process and Equal Protection when Petitioners' [sic] Motion to Dismiss was found to be considered a post-conviction relief petition.
Supporting Facts: Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss requesting an evidentiary hearing of the trial court[']s denial of the December 9, 2005 motion, because there had not be [sic] a final judgment of conviction and sentence rendered in the case.
Ground Four: The trial court failed to dispose of all charges pending against Petitioner in the single case before the trial court's judgment with respect to any charge was final.
Supporting Facts: Petitioners' [sic] conviction and sentence was not completed until July 11, 2014. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of a denial of a speedy trial violation. However, the motion was filed before a final judgment was rendered.
Ground Five: Petitioners' [sic] rights to the Federal Due Process Clause was violated when the Ohio Court of Appeals failed to comply with App.R. 12(A)(1)(c).
Supporting Facts: The Court of Appeals passed on Petitioners' [sic] first assignment of error on page 2 of the Petitioners' [sic] Motion to Vacate. See Statement of the facts on pages, 6-8 of Memorandum In Support of Jurisdiction, Case No. 2013-0553.
Ground Six: Court of Appeals violated Federal Due Process of Law and Fundamental Fairness of the proceedings when it failed to vacate the sentence it considered illegal.
Supporting Facts: The trial court's termination entry reflected a sentence that was not pronounced in the presence of the Petitioner. The appellate court recognized that the sentence is illegal, however, refused to vacate the sentence and void entry.
Ground Seven: Court of Appeals denied Petitioner Equal Protection of the Law when it denied Petitioners' [sic] Motion for Reconsideration of the appellate court's January 8, 2013 decision and entry.
Supporting Facts: Petitioners' [sic] termination entry did not reflect the manner of conviction or a sentence for all the charges like other defendant's, however, the court failed to vacate Petitioners' [sic] judgment of conviction and sentence, as the law existed at the time Petitioner was tried and sentenced.
Ground Eight: Court of Appeals lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and violated Petitioners' [sic] Federal procedural due process rights when it heard an appeal and decided the trial court imposed a sentence on each count in accordance to law.
Supporting Facts: The trial court failed to sentence Petitioner on each and every charge in accordance to Criminal Rule 32, and modified the trial court termination entry to reflect a five-year sentence of post-release control outside of the presence of the Petitioner.
Ground Nine: Where a Court of Appeals hears and decides a case in which it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, that Courts' [sic] proclamation is void and must be vacated.
Supporting Facts: The court of appeals heard Petitioners' [sic] appeal on April 27, 2007, however, said court remanded Petitioners' [sic] case back to the trial court in 2014 for resentencing. Petitioners' [sic] sentence was not a final sentence at the time it was appealed to the appellate court.
Ground Ten: Petitioner was deprived of his liberty, and his rights to the Federal due process and equal protection clauses when the appellate court denied Petitioners' [sic] Motion to Vacate Judgment, where it lacked jurisdiction over the subject-matter to review the merits of the appeal and affirm the trial court judgment where the trial court's termination entry fails to include a conviction and a sentence required by law.
Supporting Facts: Petitioner reallege[s] and incorporate[s] by reference supporting facts from Grounds Five-Nine, and the statement of the facts from pages 7-11 of Petitioners' [sic] Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction, Case No. 2013-1921.
Ground Eleven: Petitioner was denied due process and equal protection of Federal law when it denied Petitioner relief where it granted relief to others, in the same situation.
Supporting Facts: The court of appeals after denying Petitioner relief on April 17, 2013 held in State v. Johnston, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25652, 2013-0hio-4401, that State v . Sanchez, 2d Dist. Greene 2006-CA-154, 2009-0hio-813, is law when the trial court fails to dispose of each charge in the defendant's case.
Ground Twelve: Petitioner was denied Fundamental Fairness of the proceeding and the appellate court abused
...
