Honzu v. Frederick

• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
• Writing for the Court: DARRELL A. CLAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
• Docket Number: 4:24-CV-01754-BMB
• Decision Date: 15 January 2026
• Citation: Honzu v. Frederick, 4:24-CV-01754-BMB (N.D. Ohio Jan 15, 2026)
• Parties: DAVID HONZU, Petitioner, v. WARDEN GEORGE FREDRICK, Respondent.

1

DAVID HONZU, Petitioner, v. WARDEN GEORGE FREDRICK, Respondent.

No. 4:24-CV-01754-BMB

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

January 15, 2026

BRIDGET M. BRENNAN JUDGE.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

DARRELL A. CLAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Introduction

Representing himself, Petitioner David Honzu, a prisoner in state custody seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF #1). The District Court has jurisdiction under § 2254(a) and the matter is referred to me to prepare a Report and Recommendation. (Non-document entry of Dec. 10, 2024). Respondent George Fredrick, as Warden of the Marion Correctional Institution (hereinafter, the State), filed the Return of Writ with the state court record. (ECF #13). Mr Honzu filed a Traverse. (ECF #14). He also supplemented his petition with a letter arguing inconsistencies at trial prove he was wrongfully convicted. (ECF #19).

Mr. Honzu asserts four grounds for relief challenging his convictions for attempted kidnapping and tampering with evidence in Case No. 2022 CR 469 (Case No. 469) and for kidnapping and rape in Case No. 2022 CR 561 (Case No. 561). For the reasons below, I recommend the District Court DISMISS a portion of Ground One and Ground Four as procedurally defaulted, DENY the remaining grounds for relief as meritless and DENY Mr. Honzu a certificate of appealability (COA) on all grounds.

Procedural History

A. State Court Factual Findings

The Ohio Court of Appeals, Eleventh Appellate District, set forth the facts here. These factual findings are presumed correct unless Mr. Honzu rebuts the presumption by clear and convincing evidence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). In Case No. 469, the Eleventh District determined:

{¶1} On a late summer evening in early July 2022, an assailant attempted to kidnap a young woman at a self-service car wash in Champion, Ohio. Due to her quick escape, efficient police work, and modern technology, the appellant, David Honzu (“Mr. Honzu”), was apprehended a mere few hours later, still driving around in his vehicle, naked from the waist-down and intoxicated.

{¶2} Mr. Honzu appeals from the judgment entry of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, which after a bench trial, sentenced him on two merged counts of the lesser included offense of attempted kidnapping with sexual motivation, sexually violent predator (“SVP”), and repeat violent offender (“RVO”) specifications, and on one count of tampering with evidence, for an aggregate term of imprisonment of a minimum of 17 years up to a maximum of life.

{¶3} Mr. Honzu raises two assignments of error on appeal, contending (1) the state failed to prove attempted kidnapping pursuant to R.C. 2923.02(A) and 2905.01(A)(4) because there was insufficient evidence to prove he attempted to restrain the liberty of the victim with a purpose to engage in sexual activity; and (2) he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to file motions to suppress the evidence seized from searches of his vehicle and cell phone, and the cumulative pre-trial and trial errors of defense counsel deprived him of a fair trial. These cumulative errors include failing to challenge search warrants, which lacked probable cause, failing to object to the state's leading questions of two witnesses, and defense counsels' objection to the state's offer of two of his prior convictions.

{¶4} After a thorough review of the record and pertinent law, we find Mr. Honzu's assignments of error to be without merit. Firstly, Mr. Honzu argues the trial court erred in overruling his Crim.R. 29 motion on counts one and three (kidnapping) because he was convicted of the lesser included offense of attempted kidnapping. A conviction on a lesser included offense, however, does not equate to a determination that the trial court erred in failing to grant a Crim.R. 29 sufficiency motion as to that offense. A trier of fact does not have to find a defendant not guilty of an offense before considering a lesser included offense. Thus, we review Mr. Honzu's sufficiency of the evidence argument on the lesser included offense of which he was convicted, i.e., attempted kidnapping.

{¶5} A review of the evidence the state introduced at trial reveals the state introduced more than sufficient evidence that Mr. Honzu attempted to restrain the victim through the victim's testimony, her police statement, and surveillance videos from the car wash.

The state also introduced sufficient evidence that Mr. Honzu attempted to restrain the liberty of the victim for the purpose of nonconsensual sexual activity from data reports of Mr. Honzu's cell phone, which revealed his route throughout the evening, bank transactions, and search history. This evidence revealed Mr. Honzu visited three car washes in five hours while watching pornographic videos, including in the minutes prior to the incident.

{¶6} Secondly, since there was no reasonable probability the motions to suppress the inventory search of his vehicle and the subsequent searches of his vehicle and cell phone would have been granted, we conclude Mr. Honzu's trial counsel were not ineffective for failing to file motions to suppress on those grounds. There was some testimony as to standard police procedure for inventory searches, and the items seized in the inventory search were illegal contraband and in plain view. Further, the search warrants were not facially defective and described with particularity the places to be searched and items to be seized. Lastly, none of Mr. Honzu's remaining claims of ineffective assistance of counsel have merit since he failed to allege any prejudice resulting therefrom. Cumulative error cannot be established by simply joining meritless claims together.

{¶7} The judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

...

Bench Trial

{¶9} The case proceeded to a bench trial at which the state presented the testimony of L.B., the victim; Joseph Gillis (“Mr. Gillis”), the owner of the car wash; Officers Brian Mackey and Joshua Rudesill of the Champion Police Department; Deputies John Hughes (“Dep. Hughes”), Ron Carr (“Dep. Carr”), and Russ Molinato of the Trumbull County Sheriff's Office; and Detectives Eric Laproccina and Michael Altiere (“Det. Altiere”) of the Warren Police Department. The state also presented surveillance videos, photographs, and screenshots of Mr. Honzu and his vehicle from the car wash; items procured in the search of his vehicle; cell phone data reports; and certified copies of his prior convictions.

{¶10} L.B., who was 20 years old at the time, testified that on July 3, 2022, at around 9:30-10:00 p.m., she stopped at Bud's Car Wash in Champion Township, Ohio. She first noticed Mr. Honzu because he was parked next to her in the vacuum area, sitting in his passenger seat. She was inside her car, hanging an air freshener on the mirror when Mr. Honzu opened her driver's side door, confronted her with a knife, and told her not to say anything or he would kill her. He then told her, “move over bitch.” Initially, L.B. froze, but she then moved to the passenger side, opened the door, and ran. Mr. Honzu grabbed her clothing and ripped it in the process of trying to stop her. She managed to escape, and, noticing a car, she ran toward it, asking for help. The occupants assisted her and called the police, who took her statement of the incident.

{¶11} The car wash owner, Mr. Gillis, obtained video footage of the incident from his surveillance system and credit card transactions from that time period. This enabled the police to identify Mr. Honzu as the assailant, his vehicle, a copper-colored Buick SUV, and his address.

{¶12} At approximately 1:30 a.m., L.B. went to the police station upon request and identified Mr. Honzu in a photo lineup. Dep. Carr parked outside Mr. Honzu's home after confirming he was not there. After approximately 30 minutes, he observed Mr. Honzu's vehicle approaching and activated his lights, initiating a traffic stop. Dep. Hughes arrived to assist. Mr. Honzu appeared to stop but then continued driving. Both deputies saw Mr. Honzu bite something and attempt to throw an object out of the closed passenger side window, where it shattered against the glass. The deputies blocked Mr. Honzu's vehicle, forcing him to stop. Mr. Honzu refused to comply with the deputies' orders to get out of the vehicle. When he finally did so, he was barefoot and naked from the waist down with glassy eyes and a white substance in and around his mouth. He appeared intoxicated, and he struggled to put his shorts on, putting both legs through one pant hole.

{¶13} The police conducted an inventory search and in the process found, in plain view, pieces of crack-cocaine, parts of a Chore Boy brillo sponge, and pieces of a pipe. Mr. Honzu was arrested, and the vehicle was towed. Later, the police procured two search warrants for the vehicle and Mr. Honzu's cell phone. Inside the vehicle the deputies found a chaotic scene of various items, including a bottle of lotion in the center console, crumpled napkins, disposable surgery gloves, a tarp, a welding mask, cleaning supplies, a pair of men's underwear, a pair of men's shoes, and a pocketknife. The hatch/trunk area of the vehicle was completely clean.

{¶14} Data reports from Mr. Honzu's cell phone revealed he drove to two other car washes and accessed numerous pornography sites that evening, including immediately prior to the incident.

(ECF #13-1 at PageID 250-55; see also State v. Honzu, No. 2022-T-0122, 2023 WL 5202403, at *1-3 (Ohio Ct. App. Aug. 14, 2023) (Honzu I)).

In Case No. 561, the Eleventh District determined the following:

{¶1} In 2011, the Ohio Attorney General's Office started the Sexual Assault Initiative (the “SAK Initiative”

...