Stephens v. Shoop

• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
• Writing for the Court: Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz
• Decision Date: 30 July 2020
• Docket Number: Case No. 3:19-cv-249
• Citation: Stephens v. Shoop, Case No. 3:19-cv-249 (S.D. Ohio Jul 30, 2020)
• Parties: JOHN K. STEPHENS, Petitioner, v. TIM SHOOP, Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution, Respondent.

JOHN K. STEPHENS, Petitioner, v. TIM SHOOP, Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution, Respondent.

Case No. 3:19-cv-249

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

July 30, 2020

District Judge Thomas M. Rose

Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This is an action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a writ of habeas corpus brought by Petitioner John Stephens with the assistance of counsel. It is ripe for decision on the merits on the Petition (ECF No. 1), the State Court Record (ECF No. 7), the Return of Writ (ECF No. 8), and Petitioner's Reply/Traverse¹ (ECF No. 20).

As a post-judgment collateral attack on a criminal conviction, the case was automatically referred to the undersigned pursuant to General Order Day 13-01.

Litigation History

Stephens was indicted on October 8, 2015, by the Montgomery County grand jury on three counts of rape of a child under ten years of age (Indictment, State Court Record, ECF No. 7, Ex. 1). Having failed to persuade the trial court to suppress the evidence against him, he pleaded no contest to the three charges, reserving his right to appeal the suppression decision. Id. at Exhibit 10. The Plea Agreement provided the State would not seek revocation of his community control (probation) sentence in a prior child sex abuse case and would allow that case to be terminated administratively. Additionally, it would make no objection to his serving concurrently the three fifteen years to life sentences on the convictions. Stephens was sentenced as agreed.

Stephens appealed to the Ohio Second District Court of Appeals which affirmed denial of the motion to suppress. State v. Stephens, 2017-Ohio-9230 (Ohio App. 2^nd Dist. Dec. 22, 2017), appellate jurisdiction declined, 2018-Ohio-1990 (2018). Stephens then filed his Habeas Corpus Petition in this Court, pleading two grounds for relief:

GROUND ONE: Stephens' right to due process of law was violated when he was compelled to make incriminating statements by his court-ordered treatment provider as part of successful completion of the program to avoid being returned to state prison, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

GROUND TWO: Stephens' right to due process of law was violated when he was subjected to the functional equivalent of custodial interrogation, without first being apprised of his Miranda rights, in violation of the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.

(Petition, ECF No. 1, PageID 25-36).

The Factual Basis of the State Courts' Decisions

Stephens strongly contests the factual findings on which the Second District based its decision.

The relevant facts as found by the Second District are as follows:

[*P2] After violating the terms of his probation in Case No. 2013 CR 3550, Stephens was sentenced to prison for thirty-six months. On May 7, 2015, the trial court issued an entry granting Stephens judicial release. One of the conditions of his judicial release required Stephens to become a resident of Talbert House, a locked-down and secured rehabilitation facility where defendants receive sex offender therapy. Stephens was required to complete the sexual offender program at Talbert House. If he failed to complete the program, Stephens would be sent back to prison.

[*P3] Although the record is unclear regarding the specific dates, Stephens was allowed to participate in the sexual offender program at Talbert House once before in 2013 or 2014 in Case No. 2013 CR 3550, but was discharged before completing the program because of a probation violation. Thus, we note that the instant case represents the second time that the trial court permitted Stephens to participate in the sexual offender program at Talbert House.

[*P4] Upon arriving at Talbert House on May 14, 2015, Stephens was processed as an incoming resident by administrative specialist Patricia Stanley. Stanley testified that she was familiar with Stephens because he had been placed in the program once before and indicated that this was the second occasion upon which she had "briefed him for intake." Part of the briefing packet Stanley provided Stephens with included State's Exhibit I, the confidentiality form, which stated in pertinent part:

Federal Laws and Regulations do not protect information about suspected child abuse or neglect from being reported under State Law to appropriate State or Local authorities.

After Stanley explained and reviewed the confidentiality form with Stephens, she watched him sign the document.

[*P5] Once admitted, Stephens was required to participate in sexual offender treatment at Talbert House. To facilitate his treatment, Stephens was assigned to a small group which met three times a week for two hours each session. Stephens' group wasmoderated by Sherry Peterson, a clinical service provider for the sexual offenders at Talbert House in 2015. When beginning treatment, Peterson testified that she always initially reviews the confidentiality form with her "clients" and explains that she is a mandated reporter with a legal duty to warn, and if anyone tells her that they have caused harm to a child or elder, is going to cause harm to a child or elder, or cause harm to themselves, she has a duty to report that information to the police. Peterson further testified that due to the serious nature of their charges, she always specifically explains to sexual offender groups that "if they tell me that they've committed an [previously undisclosed] offense on a child or elder" confidentiality may be breached.

[*P6] Stephens had been placed in sexual offender treatment for an offense involving only one victim. However, on June 2, 2015, as part of a work assignment for Peterson's group treatment class, Stephens turned in five index cards, each containing the initials of a different victim. Peterson testified that she was surprised by Stephens' actions because in her experience, she never had a "client" admit to previously undisclosed victims as part of the assignment. Peterson further testified that she assumed Stephens would only want to discuss the victim and offense for which he had been convicted. Peterson testified that during the group meetings she tries not to guide her "clients" regarding what they want to talk about. In fact, Peterson testified that she never told Stephens that he had to provide any names or initials as part of the assignment. After Stephens turned in the index cards, the only question Peterson asked him was "do the people know about these right here?" to which Stephens responded in the negative. Peterson asked no additional questions regarding the previously undisclosed victims during the group meeting. We note that Peterson testified that there was only one other "client" for the group meeting held that day. Peterson testified that because of her duty to report, she immediately went to Linda Stout, her supervisor, for her guidance on what steps to take in light of Stephens' admissions.

[*P7] As an additional component of the sexual offender treatment, Peterson instructed her "clients" to keep a journal of their thoughts and feelings. Peterson testified that she did not tell her "clients" what to write in the journal, and Stephens did not write in his journal during class. Peterson testified that the "clients" were aware that she was going to review their journal entries. On June 4, 2015, Stephens submitted his journal to Peterson. In his journal, Stephens disclosed additional initials, which he had not listed on the index cards submitted to Peterson on June 2, 2015. Peterson brought the additional initials to Stout's attention, and on June 4, 2015, Stoutcontacted the Talbert House legal department, otherwise known as QCS. QCS directed Stout to contact the police. Stout contacted Lieutenant Cavanaugh from the Kettering Police Department. Lt. Cavanaugh then contacted Detective Gary Schomburg who had previously investigated Stephens' underlying conviction in Case No. 2013 CR 3550 for gross sexual imposition. Det. Schomburg spoke with Stout on June 4, 2015, and she informed him that Stephens had potentially disclosed additional sex offense victims in his journal and on index cards during his treatment at Talbert House. Det. Schomburg directed Stout to send him copies of the relevant documents but did not ask her to obtain any additional information from Stephens regarding his admissions. Stout then contacted QCS in order to confirm it was acceptable to transfer the documents to Det. Schomburg. QCS instructed Stout to send copies of the documents to Det. Schomburg. QCS also instructed Stout to inform Stephens that the documents were being disclosed to the police.

[*P8] On June 5, 2015, Stout contacted Schomburg via telephone and informed him that she could provide the documentation to him. The documents were later transmitted via fax to Det. Schomburg. After speaking with Det. Schomburg, Stout and Peterson had a meeting with Stephens in Stout's office. At the beginning of the meeting, Stout reviewed the Talbert House confidentiality agreement with Stephens. Stephens acknowledged that he first reviewed the agreement when he was processed into the program, and again when he initially met with Peterson when his treatment began. Stephens also acknowledged that he had signed the confidentiality agreement. Stout also reiterated that she and Peterson were mandatory reporters who were legally required to report sex abuse of a child to the police. Therefore, Stout informed Stephens that she was required to report to the police the additional victims he had disclosed during his treatment at Talbert House.

[*P9] At that point, Stephens indicated that there was one less victim than the number that Stout had indicated. Stephens stated that the initials I.A. and B.A. on the index cards were the same person, and he listed her initials twice because he "offended on her twice." Stout asked Stephens if he had anything else to tell them, and he disclosed the full name of another child that he

...