Soto v. Siekfer

• Decision Date: 15 September 2021
• Docket Number: 3:21-CV-00167-DCN
• Parties: TRAVIS SOTO, Petitioner, v. SHERIFF BRIAN SIEKFER, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio

TRAVIS SOTO, Petitioner, v. SHERIFF BRIAN SIEKFER, Respondent.

No. 3:21-CV-00167-DCN

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

September 15, 2021

DONALD C. NUGENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

Jonathan D. Greenberg United States Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 72.2. Before the Court is the Petition of Travis Soto (“Soto” or “Petitioner”), for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. No. 1), the Answer/Return of Writ (Doc. No. 14) Petitioner's Traverse (Doc. No. 16), and Respondent's Sur-Reply (Doc. No. 17). Soto is being held in custody at the Putnam County Jail. For the following reasons, the undersigned recommends that the Petition be denied.

I. Summary of Facts

The Ohio Supreme Court set forth the factual background of this case:

{¶ 4} As recounted by both parties, the relevant facts are as follows. In January 2006, Soto's son, Julio, was killed. Based on Soto's statements at the time, authorities believed that the child had died in a tragic ATV accident.

{¶ 5} In 2006, Soto gave authorities two different stories about what had happened. Initially, Soto told investigators that he had accidentally run over Julio with an ATV after turning a corner around a building on his property. Later, Soto told authorities that Julio had been riding with Soto on the vehicle and was struck after he fell off. The Lucas County Coroner's Office conducted an autopsy and concluded that Julio's injuries were consistent with an ATV accident.

{¶ 6} After being charged with child endangering under R.C. 2919.22(A) and involuntary manslaughter under R.C. 2903.04(A), Soto negotiated a plea agreement. He pleaded guilty to child endangering, and the involuntary-manslaughter charge was dismissed. Soto was sentenced to five years in prison, which he served.

{¶ 7} But it turns out that Julio's death may not have been accidental. In July 2016, Soto went to the Putnam County Sheriffs Office and confessed that he had beaten the child to death and fabricated the ATV accident. A doctor specializing in pediatric abuse reviewed the 2006 autopsy report and photographs taken at the time and concluded that the child's injuries were consistent with Soto's more recent story. Specifically, the doctor pointed to the fact that there were no bone fractures, which would normally be expected in an ATV accident. Authorities then indicted Soto for aggravated murder, murder, felonious assault, kidnapping, and tampering with evidence.

State v. Soto, 2019-Ohio-4430, 158 Ohio St.3d 44, 44-45, 139 N.E.3d 889, 891-92, cert. denied, 141 S.Ct. 138, 207 L.Ed.2d 1082 (2020).

II. Procedural history

A. 2006 Proceedings

On March 31, 2006, the Putnam County Grand Jury indicted Soto for involuntary manslaughter in violation of Ohio Revised Code (“O.R.C.”) §2903.01(C) for causing the death of another as a proximate result of committing or attempting to commit a felony (Count 1) and child endangering in violation of O.R.C. §2919.22(A) and (E)(1)(c) (Count 2) in connection with the death of his two-year-old son, Julio, on January 23, 2006. Doc. No. 12-1, p. 6. Soto, through counsel, pled not guilty. Doc. No. 12-1, p. 7.

On July 6, 2006, Soto entered into a plea agreement with the state whereby he agreed to plead guilty to the child endangering count and the state agreed to dismiss the involuntary manslaughter count. Doc. No. 12-1, pp. 20-23. On the same day, the trial court accepted Soto's guilty plea on the child endangering count. Doc. No. 12-1, pp. 9-18.

On August 31, 2006, the trial court held a sentencing hearing on the child endangering count and sentenced Soto to five years in prison. Doc. No. 12-1, pp. 24-50. He was released in 2011.

B. 2016 Proceedings

On July 25, 2016, Soto went to the Putnam County Sheriffs Department and spoke to Detective Roy Sargent. Doc. No. 12-1, pp. 102-138. Soto told Detective Sargent that he had previously lied about how his son died and that he had not hit him with an ATV by accident. He detailed how he had beat Julio to death that day and then staged the scene to align with his story about the ATV accident. He explained that he chose to confess because he had become religious while in prison. Based upon his unsolicited confession, Soto was arrested on charges of murder and tampering with evidence. Doc. No. 12-1, p. 135.

1. Trial Court Proceedings

On August 15, 2016, the Putnam County Grand Jury indicted Soto for the murder of Julio. The indictment charged him with aggravated murder in violation of O.R.C. §2903.01(C) for purposely causing the death of another under the age of thirteen (Count 1); murder in violation of O.R.C. §2903.02(B) for causing the death of another as a proximate result of committing or attempting to commit a felony of the first or second degree that is an offense of violence (Count 2); felonious assault in violation of O.R.C. §2903.11(A)(1) (Count 3); kidnapping in violation of O.R.C. §2905.01 (Count 4); and tampering with evidence in violation of O.R.C. §2921.12(A)(1) (Count 5). Doc. No. 12-1, pp. 67-68. Soto, through counsel, pled not guilty to the indictment. Doc. No. 12-1, p. 69.

On October 11, 2016, Soto, through counsel, filed a Motion to Dismiss on the Grounds of Double Jeopardy. Doc. No. 12-1, pp. 71-72. In his motion, Soto asserted that his 2016 indictment for aggravated murder and murder were barred by double jeopardy because the involuntary manslaughter charge that had been dismissed pursuant to the 2006 plea agreement was a lesser included offense of murder and aggravated murder. Id. The trial court held a hearing and overruled Soto's motion to dismiss. Doc. No. 12-1, pp. 80-145. The trial court ruled that the 2006 involuntary manslaughter count with the child endangering predicate was not a lesser offense of murder with the felonious assault predicate charged in 2016, and that double jeopardy did not bar the 2016 indictment because the state could not have discovered with reasonable diligence the underlying facts that supported that indictment in 2006. Id.

2. Soto's Interlocutory Appeal to the Ohio Court of Appeals

On May 2, 2017 Soto, through counsel, appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss to the Ohio Court of Appeals, Third Appellate District.^[1] Doc. No. 12-1, p. 146. In his brief, he raised one assignment of error and related issue:

The trial court erred overruled Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on Double Jeopardy Grounds. [sic]

Whether the Defendant's earlier guilty plea to involuntary manslaughter barred prosecution for murder and aggravated murder 11 years later.

Doc. No. 12-1, p. 173. Soto argued that his 2016 prosecution was barred because the dismissed involuntary manslaughter count was a lesser-included offense of murder and aggravated murder and because a negotiated plea “prohibits successive prosecutions where the defendant would reasonably believe his or her plea would bar further prosecution for any greater offense related to the same factual scenario.” Doc. No. 12-1, p. 176.

The Ohio Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of Soto's motion to dismiss in a 2-to-1 decision. State v. Soto, 94 N.E.3d 618, 2018-Ohio-459 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). The court, relying on Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932), and State v. Thomas, 61 Ohio St.2d 254, 259 (1980), found that “because Involuntary Manslaughter constituted a lesser included offense of Aggravated Murder and Murder, the principles of Double Jeopardy would prevent a subsequent prosecution of Soto for Aggravated Murder and Murder in this instance.” Id. at 626.

3. The State's Appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court

On March 19, 2018, the state appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court. Doc. No. 12-1, pp. 237-238. The Ohio Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction and the case proceeded to briefing on the merits and oral arguments. Doc. No. 12-1, pp. 235-236, 288.

On October 19, 2019, the Ohio Supreme Court, in a 6-to-1 decision, reversed the decision of the court of appeals. State v. Soto, 2019-Ohio-4430, 139 N.E.3d 889 (Ohio 2019). The Ohio Supreme Court found that jeopardy had not attached to the involuntary manslaughter count because it was dismissed prior to trial and that, therefore, the Double Jeopardy Clause did not bar Soto's prosecution for murder and aggravated murder. Id. at 893-894.

4. Soto's Appeal to the United States Supreme Court

On February 27, 2020, Soto, through counsel, filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. Doc. No. 12-1, p. 455. The Court denied Soto's petition for certiorari on June 22, 2020. Soto v. Ohio, 141 S.Ct. 138 (2020).

C. Soto's Federal Habeas Petition

On January 21, 2021, Soto, through counsel, filed a federal habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241. Doc. No. 1. In his petition, he advanced a single ground for relief:

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment Precludes the State of Ohio from Trying Travis Soto a Second Time for the Death of His Son Because It Previously Convicted Him for the Death which Resulted in Mr. Soto Serving a Five-Year Sentence.

Doc. No. 1, p. 10.

The Respondent filed a Return of Writ (Doc. No. 14), the state court record (Doc. No. 12), and autopsy and photograph exhibits under seal (Doc. No. 13). Soto filed a Traverse (Doc. No. 16) and Respondent filed a Sur-Reply (Doc. No. 17).

II. Standard of Review

As a pretrial detainee challenging his confinement, Soto filed his habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Phillips v. Ct. of Common Pleas, Hamilton Cty., Ohio, 668 F.3d 804, 809 (6th Cir. 2012) (an indicted in-custody habeas petitioner asserting a double jeopardy violation proceeds under §2241; “We have long recognized that pretrial detainees pursue habeas relief [ ] un...