Clements v. Timmerman-Cooper
Decision Date | 25 May 2012 |
Docket Number | Case No. 1:11-cv-442 |
Parties | BILL DAVID CLEMENTS Petitioner, v. DEB TIMMERMAN-COOPER, Warden, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
This is a habeas corpus case brought pro se under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by Petitioner Bill David Clements. He pleads the following Grounds for Relief:
(Petition, Doc. No. 2.) On Judge Bowman's Order (Doc. No. 3), the Respondent Warden has filed a Return of Writ (Doc. No. 7) and Petitioner has filed a Reply in support (Doc. No. 8).
Petitioner was indicted by the Butler County Grand Jury on one count each of attempted aggravated burglary with a firearm specification, one count of tampering with evidence, and one count of possessing criminal tools. In addition to the indictment, he was provided a bill of particulars on the charges. After trial to a jury at which he testified, he was convicted on all counts and sentenced to seven years confinement which he is serving in Respondent's custody.
Petitioner appealed to the Butler County Court of Appeals raising the following assignments of error:
(Merit Brief and Reply Brief on Appeal, Return of Writ, Doc. No. 7, Exhibits 8 and 10.) The court of appeals affirmed, rejecting all of the assignments of error. State v. Clements, 2010 Ohio 4801, 2010 Ohio App. LEXIS 4065 (Ohio App. 12th Dist., Oct. 4, 2010). Petitioner then appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, essentially repeating the same arguments he made on direct appeal and that he makes here, but that court declined to take jurisdiction. State v. Clements, 2011 Ohio 647, 2011 Ohio LEXIS 420 (2011). Petitioner then timely filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this Court.
In his First Ground for Relief, Petitioner asserts that the indictment in this case was defective because it did not include all the elements of aggravated burglary and theft, it omitted the deadly weapon element, it failed to identify the record, document, or thing which was the object of the tampering with evidence count, and it failed to identify the criminal tool allegedly in his possessionin the possession count (Petition, Doc. No. 2, PageID 5).
The Warden contends that the defectiveness of an indictment is not a claim cognizable in habeas corpus because there is no federal constitutional requirement of indictment by a grand jury in state court proceedings (Return of Writ, Doc. No. 7, PageID 27-29). The Warden also contends that this Ground for Relief is procedurally defaulted because Petitioner did not file a pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment for the asserted deficiency, as required by Ohio R. Crim. P. 12 (Return of Writ, Doc. No. 7, PageID 29-37). The Warden notes that the indictment was supplemented with a bill of particulars (Return of Writ, Doc. No. 7, Ex. 15). Finally, the Warden asserts the First Ground is without merit (Return of Writ, Doc. No. 7, PageID 50-53.)
In his Traverse, Petitioner focuses almost entirely on his argument that the Warden and the Court of Appeals are wrong as a matter of Ohio law (Traverse, Doc. No. 8, PageID 512-518). He makes no response to the procedural default argument.
On the first assignment of error, the court of appeals wrote:
To continue reading
Request your trial