Petty v. Wainwright
Decision Date | 09 April 2019 |
Docket Number | Case No. 2:18-cv-586 |
Parties | MATHIAS D. PETTY, Petitioner, v. LYNEAL WAINWRIGHT, WARDEN, Marion Correctional Institution Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
This habeas corpus case, brought pro se by Petitioner Mathias D. Petty pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, was filed in the Northern District of Ohio on May 24, 2018 (ECF No. 1). On June 11, 2018, the case was transferred to the Southern District of Ohio, pursuant to Order of Chief Judge Patricia Gaughan (ECF No. 4) and assigned to District Judge Algenon L. Marbley and Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson. On Magistrate Judge Jolson's Order (ECF No. 6), the State filed the State Court Record and a Return of Writ (ECF Nos. 12, 13). The case became ripe on the filing of Petitioner's Traverse (ECF No. 16). The reference in the case was recently transferred to the undersigned to help balance the workload in the District (ECF No. 17).
Petty pleads the following grounds for relief:
(Petition, ECF No. 1, PageID 14, 18, 27, 29.)
In July 2014, Petty was indicted by a Franklin County grand jury on one count of rape with specifications in violation of Ohio Revised Code §2907.02 and one count of importuning in violation of Ohio Revised Code §2907.07. Petty, through counsel, entered a not guilty plea and the case was set for jury trial.
Prior to trial, the State of Ohio filed a notice of intent to introduce a certified copy of Petty's prior judgment entry reflecting his previous conviction for aggravated robbery. Petty waived his right to a jury trial on the repeat violent offender specification. Following trial, the jury found Petty guilty of one count of rape and one count of importuning, and the trial court found him guilty of the repeat violent offender specification. In September 2015, Petty was sentenced to serve an aggregate sentence of fifteen years to life. (State Court Record, ECF No. 12, PageID 127.)
Petty, through counsel, filed an appeal of his conviction to the Tenth District Court of Appeals, Franklin County, Ohio. The court of appeals affirmed Petty's conviction but remanded to the trial court for resentencing. State v. Petty, Case No. 15AP-950, 2017-Ohio-1062, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 1025 (Ohio App. 10th Dist. Mar. 23, 2017).
Petty, through his appellate counsel, filed an appeal of the Court of Appeals' Judgment to the Supreme Court of Ohio which declined to accept jurisdiction pursuant to S.C.Prac.R. 7.08(B)(4). State v. Petty, 151 Ohio St. 3d 1455 (2017).
Pursuant to the remand, on April 26, 2017, the trial court made the required proportionality findings as dictated by the Court of Appeals and resentenced Petty to serve an aggregate sentence of fifteen years to life. (State Court Record, ECF No. 12, PageID 301)
Petty, through counsel, timely appealed the resentence and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. State v. Petty, Case No. 17AP-385, 2017-Ohio-9200, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 5617 (Ohio App. 10th Dist. Dec. 21, 2017). Petty did not pursue an appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court.
In his First Ground for Relief, Petty claims he was denied due process and a fair trial when Police Officer David Schulz was permitted to testify about the content of a written message he observed on a cell phone screen.
The Tenth District Court of Appeals stated the background facts of the case as follows:
State v. Petty, 2017-Ohio-1062.
As part of the proof of the importuning charge, Columbus Police Officer David Schulztestified to being dispatched to the scene of the alleged crime at about 11:30 p.m. on July 5, 2014. He was given the victim's cell phone. Although he did not keep the phone, he testified to the content of text messages between Petitioner and the victim, C.A., transmitted through an application called Badoo which were "trying to establish a basic contact and, specifically for that day, trying to set up a meeting day or meeting time and place between [C.A.] and the other individual." State v. Petty at ¶¶ 14-15. Defendant's counsel objected but the objection was overruled. On appeal, the Tenth District decided this claim as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial