Williams v. Jenkins, CASE NO. 2:16-CV-00666
| Decision Date | 13 July 2016 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 2:16-CV-00666 |
| Parties | BRIAN L. WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. CHARLOTTE JENKINS, WARDEN, CHILLICOTHE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
BRIAN L. WILLIAMS, Petitioner,
v.
CHARLOTTE JENKINS, WARDEN, CHILLICOTHE
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent.
CASE NO. 2:16-CV-00666
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
July 13, 2016
JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers
ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner, a state prisoner, has filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 as well as a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 1.) Because the information contained in the affidavit relates to his financial condition when he was incarcerated, and he has since been released from prison, Petitioner's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If the matter proceeds, Petitioner will be directed to file another application with his current information. Nonetheless, for purposes of the following analysis, the Clerk is DIRECTED to file the Petition.
This matter is before the Court on its own motion to consider the sufficiency of the Petition, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. For the reasons that follow, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED.
Petitioner challenges his June 28, 2008 convictions pursuant to his guilty plea on two counts of sexual battery in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas. See State v. Williams,
Page 2
Case No. 15CAA 03 0023, 2015 WL 6739561 (Ohio App. 5th Dist. Nov. 3, 2015). According to the Petition, on August 18, 2008, the trial court imposed consecutive sentences of four years of incarceration on each count. (PageID# 6.) Petitioner did not file an appeal. Petitioner indicates that he did not know, and neither the trial court nor trial counsel advised him, that he had a right to do so.
On November 25, 2014, Petitioner filed a "motion to present plain errors and defects and request for an evidentiary hearing to correct an illegal sentence" in the state trial court. He asserted therein that his convictions constituted allied offenses of similar import, that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences, failed to advise him of his right to appeal at sentencing, and that he had been denied the effective assistance of counsel. Williams, 2015 WL 6739561, at *1. "The trial court overruled the motion, finding that [Petitioner's] claims should have been raised on direct appeal or pursuant to a timely petition for postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.21." Id. Petitioner filed a timely appeal. On November 3, 2015, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of petitioner's motion as an untimely petition for post-conviction relief. Id. On March 23, 2016, the Ohio Supreme Court declined jurisdiction of the appeal. State v. Williams, 145 Ohio St.3d 1423 (Ohio 2016).
On July 1, 2016, Petitioner executed the instant habeas corpus petition. (PageID# 3.) Petitioner asserts that the state courts "erred in denying a properly titled motion to present plain errors and defects, and request for an evidentiary hearing to correct an illegal sentence as provided for under the provisions within Criminal Rule 52(B)" (claim one); that his convictions constitute allied offenses of similar import (claim two); and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his attorney led him to belief that his convictions would be merged
Page 3
at sentencing and he would be sentenced to no more than four years in prison and would be able to obtain early release, and failed to advise him of his right to appeal (claim three).
To the extent that Petitioner asserts that the state courts improperly denied his motion to present plain errors and defects and request for an evidentiary hearing to correct an illegal sentence as an untimely post-conviction petition, such claim fails to provide a basis for federal habeas corpus relief.
The Sixth Circuit has held that "habeas corpus is not the proper means by which prisoners should challenge errors or deficiencies in state post-conviction proceedings." Greer v. Mitchell, 264 F.3d 663, 681 (6th Cir. 2001) (rejecting as noncognizable in habeas corpus claim that Ohio's post-conviction scheme fails to provide defendants an adequate corrective process for reviewing claims of constitutional violations) (citing Kirby v. Dutton, 794 F.2d 245 (6th Cir. 1986)), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 940, 122 S.Ct. 1323, 152 L.Ed.2d 231 (2002). Federal habeas review is not available to attack the legality of post-conviction proceedings because such proceedings are not related to a petitioner's detention. Kirby, 794 F.2d at 247; see also Cress v. Palmer, 484 F.3d 844, 853 (6th Cir. 2007); Alley v. Bell, 307 F.3d 380, 387 (6th Cir.2002). Petitioner's claim "must directly dispute the fact or duration of the confinement." Kirby, 794 F.2d at 248 (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973)). A ground for relief that challenges the correctness of a state judicial proceeding and does not dispute the detention itself is not cognizable. See Kirby, 794 F.2d at 247-48.
Wright v. Lazaroff, 643 F. Supp. 2d 971, 990-91 (S.D. Ohio 2009) (footnote omitted).
To the extent that Petitioner raises an issue regarding the alleged violation of state law, such claim likewise fails to provide a basis for federal habeas corpus relief. A federal court may review a state prisoner's habeas petition only if the petitioner's challenge to his confinement is predicated on an alleged violation of the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); § 2254(a). Thus, a federal court may not issue a writ of habeas corpus "on
Page 4
the basis of a perceived error of state law." Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37, 41 (1984); Smith v. Sowders, 848 F.2d 735, 738 (6th Cir. 1988). It is only where the error resulted in the denial of fundamental fairness will habeas relief be granted. Cooper v. Sowders, 837 F.2d 284, 286 (6th Cir. 1988). Such are not the circumstances here.
Therefore, claim one fails to warrant federal habeas corpus relief.
Further, the record reflects that Petitioner's remaining claims are time-barred. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), which became effective on April 24, 1996, imposes a one-year statute of limitations on the filing of habeas corpus petitions. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) provides:
(d) (1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period shall run from...
To continue reading
Request your trial