Griffin v. Warden

• Decision Date: 21 March 2016
• Docket Number: CASE NO. 2:14-CV-00857
• Parties: CALVIN GRIFFIN, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, NOBLE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio

CALVIN GRIFFIN, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, NOBLE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent.

CASE NO. 2:14-CV-00857

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

March 21, 2016

JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner, a state prisoner, brings the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter is before the Court on the Petition, Respondent's Return of Writ, Petitioner's Reply, and the exhibits of the parties. For the reasons that follow, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus conditionally be GRANTED on Petitioner's claim that he was denied his right to counsel and that Petitioner be released subject to a re-trial within ninety (90) days. The Magistrate Judge further RECOMMENDS that the remainder of Petitioner's claims be DISMISSED.

Petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED.

Facts and Procedural History

The Ohio Tenth District Court of Appeals summarized the facts and procedural history of the case as follows:

On November 9, 2011, Columbus police officers conducted a traffic stop of a vehicle in which appellant was the driver and sole occupant. Appellant was placed under arrest for failure to possess a valid driver's license, and the vehicle he was driving, which was registered in someone else's name, was impounded. An inventory search of the vehicle led to the discovery of a loaded 9 mm handgun and 24.19 grams of cocaine.

On January 30, 2012, appellant was indicted on one count of carrying a concealed weapon, in violation of R.C. 2923.12, one count of improperly handling a firearm in a motor vehicle, in violation of R.C. 2923.16, one count of possession of cocaine, in violation of R.C. 2925.11, and one count of having a weapon while under disability, in violation of R.C. 2923.13.

The case came for trial before a jury beginning July 23, 2012. Following the presentation of evidence, the jury returned verdicts finding appellant guilty of the counts charging him with carrying a concealed weapon, improper handling of a firearm in a motor vehicle, and possession of cocaine. The trial court separately found appellant guilty of Count 4 (having a weapon while under disability), and the court sentenced appellant by entry filed August 10, 2012.

On appeal, appellant sets forth the following two assignments of error for this court's review:

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY REFUSING TO ALLOW APPELLANT TO OBTAIN NEW COUNSEL WHEN REQUESTED IN VIOLATION OF APPELLANT'S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II

APPELLANT WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN HIS TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO FILE A MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE EVIDENCE ON HIS BEHALF.

State v. Griffin, No. 12AP-798, 2013 WL 6506888, at *1 (Ohio App. 10th Dist. Dec. 10, 2013). On April 23, 2014, the Ohio Supreme Court declined to accept jurisdiction of the appeal. State v. Griffin, 138 Ohio St.3d 1470. Thereafter, Petitioner timely filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He asserts that the trial court improperly refused to appoint new counsel (claim one); that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to file a motion to suppress evidence (claim two); and that he wasdenied a fair trial (claim three). It is the position of the Respondent that Petitioner's claims lack merit or are procedurally defaulted.

Merits

Standard of Review

Petitioner seeks habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA") sets forth standards governing this Court's review of state-court determinations. The United State Supreme Court recently described AEDPA as "a formidable barrier to federal habeas relief for prisoners whose claims have been adjudicated in state court" and emphasized that courts must not "lightly conclude that a State's criminal justice system has experienced the 'extreme malfunction' for which federal habeas relief is the remedy." Burt v. Titlow, — U.S. —, —, 134 S.Ct. 10, 16 (2013) (quoting Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011)); see also Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766, 773 (2010) ("AEDPA . . . imposes a highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings, and demands that state court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt." (internal quotation marks, citations, and footnote omitted)).

The factual findings of the state appellate court are presumed to be correct. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e) (1) provides:

In a proceeding instituted by an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court, a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct. The applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence.

"Under AEDPA, a writ of habeas corpus should be denied unless the state court decision was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court, or based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented to the state courts." Coley v. Bagley, 706 F.3d 741, 748 (6th Cir. 2013)(citing Slagle v. Bagley, 457 F.3d 501, 513 (6th Cir. 2006)); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) (a petitioner must show that the state court's decision was "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law"); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2) (a petitioner must show that the state court relied on an "unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding"). The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently explained these standards as follows:

A state court's decision is "contrary to" Supreme Court precedent if (1) "the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the Supreme] Court on a question of law[,]" or (2) "the state court confronts facts that are materially indistinguishable from a relevant Supreme Court precedent and arrives" at a different result. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000). A state court's decision is an "unreasonable application" under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) if it "identifies the correct governing legal rule from [the Supreme] Court's cases but unreasonably applies it to the facts of the particular . . . case" or either unreasonably extends or unreasonably refuses to extend a legal principle from Supreme Court precedent to a new context. Id. at 407, 529 U.S. 362, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389.

Coley, 706 F.3d at 748-49. The burden of satisfying the standards set forth in § 2254 rests with the petitioner. Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 180 (2011).

"In order for a federal court to find a state court's application of [Supreme Court precedent] unreasonable, . . . [t]he state court's application must have been objectively unreasonable," not merely "incorrect or erroneous." Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 520-21, (2003) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Williams v. Taylor, 529. U.S. at 409 and Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 76 (2003)); see also Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. at 101 ("A state court's determination that a claim lacks merit precludes federal habeas relief so long as " 'fairminded jurists could disagree' on the correctness of the state court's decision." (quoting Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664 (2004)). In considering a claim of "unreasonableapplication" under § 2254(d)(1), courts must focus on the reasonableness of the result, not on the reasonableness of the state court's analysis. Holder v. Palmer, 588 F.3d 328, 341 (6th Cir. 2009) (" '[O]ur focus on the 'unreasonable application' test under Section 2254(d) should be on the ultimate legal conclusion that the state court reached and not whether the state court considered and discussed every angle of the evidence.'" (quoting Neal v. Puckett, 286 F.3d 230, 246 (5th Cir. 2002) (en banc))); see also Nicely v. Mills, 521 F. App'x 398, 403 (6th Cir. 2013) (considering evidence in the state court record that was "not expressly considered by the state court in its opinion" to evaluate the reasonableness of state court's decision). Relatedly, in evaluating the reasonableness of a state court's ultimate legal conclusion under § 2254(d)(1), a court must review the state court's decision based solely on the record that was before it at the time it rendered its decision. Pinholster, 563 U.S. at 180. Put simply, "review under § 2254(d)(1) focuses on what a state court knew and did." Id. at 1399.

Claim One

In claim one, Petitioner asserts that he was denied his right to counsel of choice and that the trial court improperly refused to conduct a hearing on his request for the appointment of new counsel. The state appellate court rejected Petitioner's claim as follows:

[A]ppellant asserts the trial court erred in refusing his request to obtain new counsel. By way of background, on the morning of the first day of trial, prior to the jury being impaneled, defense counsel informed the trial court that she believed appellant no longer wanted her representation. Appellant cites the following portion of the trial transcript involving a colloquy between defense counsel, the trial court, and appellant:

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: And also, my client—I don't think he wants me to represent him, but—

THE COURT: Mr. Griffin, do you want to put something on the record?

DEFENDANT GRIFFIN: Yes. I don't think she's working on my behalf, sir, so I do want somebody else on it that I feel is—if I'm going to put money on it, too, that they're going to be working on my behalf. And I don't see anything that she's doing for me. She's like lack of communication to me.

Since May 20th she said she was going to come see me, and to this date the first day I ever seen her. She didn't come down one time to see me, so I've got to get somebody on my

...