Reed v. Sheldon, Case No. 5:17cv2672

Decision Date29 August 2019
Docket NumberCase No. 5:17cv2672
PartiesPAUL REED, Petitioner, v. EDWARD SHELDON, Warden, Respondent.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Ohio

JUDGE JAMES S. GWIN

MAGISTRATE JUDGE THOMAS M. PARKER

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. Introduction

Petitioner Paul Reed filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the constitutionality of his convictions and sentences in State v. Reed, Case No. CR 2014 04 1179.1 ECF Doc. 1. Respondent Warden, Edward Sheldon, filed an answer/return of writ. ECF Doc. 9. Reed filed a traverse. ECF Doc. 13.

On February 27, 2015, a jury found Reed guilty of one count of murder and one count of complicity to commit murder. ECF doc. 9-1 at 12. On March 13, 2015, after merging Reed's charges, the trial court sentenced Reed to serve a sentence of fifteen years to life. ECF Doc. 9-1 at 13. Reed is currently incarcerated at Mansfield Correctional Institution.2

Because Reed's claims are procedurally defaulted, lack merit and/or present only noncognizable claims, I recommend that his claims be DISMISSED and his petition for writ of habeas corpus be DENIED.

II. Procedural History
A. State Conviction

On May 6, 2014, a Summit County Grand Jury indicted Reed on one count of aggravated murder (Count One), one count of complicity to commit aggravated murder (Count Two), and one count of obstructing justice (Count Four). ECF Doc. 9-1 at 3-4. Reed pleaded not guilty. ECF Doc. 9-1 at 6.

Before the trial began, the trial court dismissed the obstructing justice charge upon the state's recommendation. ECF Doc. 9-1 at 7. The jury found Reed not guilty of aggravated murder and complicity to commit aggravated murder but guilty of the lesser included offenses of murder and complicity to commit murder. ECF Doc. 9-1 at 7. On March 13, 2015, the trial court merged the charges and ordered Reed to serve an indeterminate sentence of fifteen years to life in prison. ECF Doc. 9-1 at 13.

B. Direct Appeal

On April 13, 2015, Reed, represented by new counsel, filed an appeal in the Ohio Court of Appeals. ECF Doc. 9-1 at 14. Reed's brief asserted four assignments of error:

First Assignment of Error: Mr. Reed's convictions were contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. ECF Doc. 9-1 at 19.
Issue Presented: Was the evidence presented such that reasonable minds could not reach different conclusions as to whether each element of the offenses had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt? ECF Doc. 9-1 at 20.
Second Assignment of Error: The jury verdict finding Mr. Reed guilty of murder was against the sufficiency of the evidence. ECF Doc. 9-1 at 19.
Issue Presented: Was the evidence presented by the State insufficient to prove every element of the charge? ECF Doc. 9-1 at 20.
Third Assignment of Error: The trial court erred in failing to grant Mr. Reed's motion for self-defense instruction in the jury instructions. ECF Doc. 9-1 at 19.
Issue Presented: Was there sufficient evidence presented at trial that the Trial Court should have included a self-defense instruction in the jury instructions? ECF Doc. 9-1 at 20.
Fourth Assignment of Error IV: The trial court's errors, when taken in their entirety, deprived Mr. Reed of a fair trial as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section Sixteen of the Ohio Constitution. ECF Doc. 9-1 at 19.
Issue Presented: Did the trial court's errors when taken as a whole deprive Mr. Reed of his constitutional right to a fair trial? ECF Doc. 9-1 at 20.

On July 27. 2016, the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court. ECF Doc. 9-1 at 60, State v. Reed, 9th Dist. Summit No. 27755, 27811, 2016-Ohio-5123.

Reed did not timely appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court. On October 14, 2016, he filed a pro se motion for leave to file a delayed appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court. ECF Doc. 9-1 at 76. In his motion, Reed argued that counsel did not notify him of the decision of the Ohio Court of Appeals until August 8, 2016. On December 14, 2016, the Ohio Supreme Court denied Reed's motion. ECF Doc. 9-1 at 94.

III. Federal Habeas Corpus Petition

On December 13, 2017, Reed placed his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the prison mailing system. ECF Doc. 1 at 15. Reed asserts three grounds for relief.

GROUND ONE: Insufficient evidence to support the charges of murder and complicity to commit murder resulting in violation of appellant's fifth and fourteenth due process rights. ECF Doc. 1 at 6.
Supporting facts:
1. Although there was no physical evidence linking Petitioner Paul Reed with the homicide of the decedent, James Harris, he was convicted of Murder and Complicity to Commit Murder.
2. On April 26, 2014, victim James Harris was killed at the appellant's home located at 914 Minota in Summit County, Ohio.
3. At trial the State presented nineteen (19) witnesses, while defense counsel chose to present no witnesses for Appellant's defense.
4. The decedent's son, Jabari Harris, testified that his father went to Appellant's residence to purchase a car.
5. The State's star key witness, Ms. Kelly, testified that on the date of the killing, she met the victim in Appellant's driveway to show him to the car. (Tr. at 319).
6. She then also testified that she led Mr. Harris to the basement of Appellant's residence. (Tr. at 221).
7. There is no explanation on the record why Ms. Kelly would take the victim to the basement instead of to the garage where the only vehicle was parked.
8. Although Ms. Kelly could not see what Mr. Harris was doing behind her, she testified that she ran out of the house when Harris was struck in the face with a stick by Appellant. (Tr. at 331).
9. However, she also testified that she was in front of the victim and could not see what Mr. Harris was doing, or if there were any other individuals in the basement. (Id.)
10. Later in the trial, the State's forensic expert witness testified that their testing of the stick which Ms. Kelly said Appellant used to strike the victim did not have any DNA nor finger prints of Appellant on it.
11. Appellant was in the basement doing laundry when he heard the back door open.
12. When Appellant Reed approached the basement stairs, the first thing he saw was an arm and a hand with a gun in it coming around the corner at the bottom of the stairs.
13. The record supports the fact that the victim had a gun on his person.
14. Mr. Reed wrestled the victim to the floor in an attempt to get the gun away from him, while they both flailed away at each other.
15. After they exchanged punches, the victim eventually fell to the floor striking his head hard against the basement floor.
16. Appellant immediately asked his girl friend, Ms. Tiffany Powell, to call 911, which she did.
17. When the officers arrived at the scene very shortly after Ms. Powell called 911, they found the victim lying on his side bleeding from his head with his gun on the floor very close to his outstretched arm.
18. The officers also testified that Mr. Reed was sitting on the floor with his back leaning against the wall.
19. The crime scene photo of the victim which was shown to the jury confirmed the details in statements 17 and 18 above.
20. The record shows no evidence that Petitioner had invited the victim to his home.
21. When Petitioner saw a person with a gun coming down his basement stairs, he was understandably on the defensive to what looked like a home invasion.
22. Although there is substantial evidence that the victim was armed with a gun at the time of the incident, there was no evidence whatsoever, that Petitioner Reed was armed or that he had a gun in his possession or on his person.

ECF Doc. 1 at 18-20.

GROUND TWO: Trial court's failure to provide jury instructions with self-defense instruction violated petitioner's federal due process rights. ECF Doc. 1 at 8.
Supporting facts:
1. Petitioner Paul Reed herein restates all the Statements in Exhibit A to support Ground Two as if fully rewritten herein.
2. Defendant Reed, through counsel, had timely moved the trial court to provide a jury instruction regarding the affirmative defense of self defense.
3. The trial court refused to so instruct the jury.
4. The victim was not invited to Petitioner's home.
5. As supported by the evidence, the victim was armed with a gun and the Petitioner was unarmed.
6. Victim was an armed home invader who came into Reed's basement while he was doing laundry.
7. The loaded gun at the scene was found to belong to the victim and not Reed.
8. D.N.A. on the weapon was found to be Harris' and not the Petitioner's.
9. Under Ohio law, Reed did not have a duty to flee from his own home.
10. Petitioner maintains his innocence of the crimes he was convicted.

ECF Doc. 1 at 21.

GROUND THREE: The cumulative effect of the abuses of discretion by the trial court have resulted in several distinct and separate violations of petitioner's federal due process rights. ECF Doc. 1 at 9.
Supporting facts:
1. The Trial Court abused its discretion when it failed to give instruction of self defense, as there was clear and convincing evidence of this claim.
2. The Trial Court erred when it failed to declare a mistrial after an inconsistent jury verdict.
3. The Trial Court abused its discretion by sending the jury back for deliberations after returning the inconsistent jury verdict.
4. The Trial Court abused its discretion when it denied Mr. Reed's request for acquittal following the inconsistent jury verdict.
5. Petitioner Reed was denied a fair and impartial trial due to the cumulative errors at the discretion of the Trial Court.

ECF Doc. 1 at 22.

IV. Law and Analysis
A. Factual Background

We begin with a recitation of the facts found in the Ohio courts. The Ohio Court of Appeals summarized the "jury trial at which the following evidence was offered":

{¶ 2} The Summit County Grand Jury indicted Reed on one count of aggravated murder in violation of R.C. 2903.01(A), an unspecified felony, and one count of complicity to commit
...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT