Williams v. Warden, Lebanon Corr. Inst.

• Decision Date: 08 May 2013
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:12-cv-56
• Parties: ROBERT WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, LEBANON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio

ROBERT WILLIAMS, Petitioner,

v.WARDEN, LEBANON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent.

Case No. 1:12-cv-56

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Dated: May 8, 2013

Bertelsman, J.

Litkovitz, M.J.

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner, an inmate in state custody at the Lebanon Correctional Institution in Lebanon, Ohio, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter is before the Court on the petition and respondent's return of writ with exhibits, including a copy of the trial transcript. (Docs. 1, 9).

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

State Trial Proceedings

In December 2008, the Hamilton County, Ohio, grand jury returned an indictment charging petitioner with four counts of rape in violation of Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.02(A)(2), with a firearm specification attached to three of the counts (Counts Two through Four). (Doc. 9, Ex. 1). The indictment was later amended to correct the date when the offenses charged in Counts Two and Three allegedly occurred. (See id.). Specifically, in Count One of the amended indictment, petitioner was charged with a rape occurring on February 14, 2004 against a victim identified as "N.M." The second and third counts stemmed from an incident occurring on June 9, 2004, involving a second victim identified as "L.F." Finally, the fourth count charged petitioner with an offense that occurred on or about December 1, 2008, against a third victimidentified as "T.W." (See id.). The Ohio Court of Appeals, First Appellate District, has provided the following summary of the facts that led to petitioner's indictment based on evidence presented at petitioner's subsequent trial:¹

Williams was charged with raping three women. The first of these alleged victims was Nina Miller.

Williams and Miller became acquainted when Miller worked at the customer service desk at a shopping mall. One evening, they went out for drinks, and Miller drove Williams back to his apartment. Miller testified that Williams had invited her into the apartment with the promise that he would lend her money.

She testified that, once inside, Williams had grabbed her around the neck, had her thrown to the floor, and had vaginally raped her. Photographs taken soon after the assault revealed bruising on her neck and thigh.

The second victim was Lisa Flowers. Williams and Flowers had been acquainted for a short time when Williams invited her to his apartment. Flowers testified that, after she had been at the apartment for some time, Williams had ordered her to take her clothes off and had threatened to shoot her if she did not comply. She stated that, after she had removed her clothing, Williams had performed oral sex on her and had digitally penetrated her.

The third victim was Tanea White. Williams met White at a bus stop, and the two struck up a conversation. Williams told her that he knew a photographer who would pay her to model.

Williams invited White to his home with the promise that the photographer would be there. White testified that, after she had gotten to the residence, Williams had ordered her to take her clothes off and had told her that he would shoot her if she did not do so. According to White, Williams then forced her legs open and had vaginally raped her.

Forensic evidence revealed the presence of Williams's semen on both Miller and White. On the stand, Williams conceded that he had engaged in vaginal intercourse with Miller and White and that he had digitally penetrated Flowers. But he contended that he had given money to the women for sex and that the sexual activity was therefore consensual. He denied engaging in oral sex with Flowers.

(Id., Ex. 9, pp. 1-2).

Prior to trial, petitioner's counsel filed a suggestion of incompetence and a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity on petitioner's behalf. (Id., Exs. 2-3). On May 5, 2009, the trial court ordered that petitioner be examined at the Court Clinic Forensic Services' Psychiatric Center for the purpose of assessing his competency to stand trial. (Id., Ex. 4). After receiving the report of the doctor who conducted petitioner's psychiatric evaluation, the trial court entered an order on June 15, 2009, finding petitioner "to be competent for the purpose of standing trial." (Id., Ex. 5).

The matter proceeded to trial before a jury, which found petitioner guilty of the rape charges. However, the jury acquitted petitioner on the firearm specification attached to three of the counts. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court issued a Judgment Entry on September 17, 2009, sentencing petitioner to consecutive ten (10) year terms of imprisonment for each offense, or an aggregate prison term of forty (40) years. (Id., Ex. 6).

State Appeal Proceedings

With the assistance of new counsel for appeal purposes, petitioner timely appealed to the Ohio Court of Appeals, First Appellate District. (Doc. 9, Ex. 7). Petitioner presented six assignments of error for the court's consideration:

1. The trial court erred to the prejudice of the Defendant-Appellant by not granting the Rule 29 motion as there was insufficient evidence to convict.

2. The trial court erred to the prejudice of the Defendant/Appellant because the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

3. The trial court erred in sentencing the Defendant to allied offenses of similar import.

4. The Defendant-Appellant was denied due process of law and subject to cruel and unusual punishment when the court sentenced him to a 40-year sentence.

5. The trial court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive, maximumsentences.

6. The defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel.

(Id.). Petitioner specifically claimed in his sixth assignment of error that "[w]here defense counsel says at sentencing, after a lengthy jury trial, that he just found out his client has mental issues, the defendant receives ineffective assistance." (Id.).

On June 9, 2010, the Ohio Court of Appeals issued a Judgment Entry overruling petitioner's assignments of error and affirming the trial court's judgment. (Id., Ex. 9).

Petitioner did not perfect a timely appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court. However, the Ohio Supreme Court granted petitioner leave to file a pro se delayed appeal. (See id., Brief, pp. 4-5 & Exs. 10-11). In his memorandum in support of jurisdiction, petitioner asserted the same claims that he had presented as assignments of error on direct appeal to the Ohio Court of Appeals. (See id., Ex. 12). On January 19, 2011, the Ohio Supreme Court denied petitioner leave to appeal and summarily dismissed the appeal "as not involving any substantial constitutional question." (Id., Ex. 13).

State Post-Conviction Proceedings

On May 4, 2010, during the pendency of petitioner's appeal to the Ohio Court of Appeals, petitioner, who was assisted by counsel from the Ohio Public Defender's Office, filed a petition for post-conviction relief with the trial court. (Doc. 9, Ex. 14). Petitioner claimed in the petition that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a certain witness, who would have provided testimony in favor of the defense with respect to the rape offense charged in Count Four of the indictment. (See id.). A hearing was held on August 6, 2010, and on August 30, 2010, the trial court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law denying the post-conviction petition. (Id., Ex. 17).

Prior to receiving the trial court's ruling denying post-conviction relief, another attorneyfrom the Ohio Public Defender's Office filed a motion on August 31, 2010, requesting the reopening of the hearing on the post-conviction petition, in which petitioner's counsel had "appeared by telephone" and petitioner was not permitted to be present. (Id., Ex. 18). Counsel claimed in the motion that petitioner was denied the opportunity to present evidence in support of his petition because the attorney who represented petitioner at the hearing "reasonably believed" that the hearing was not on the merits of the petition, but rather on a pending motion to amend the petition. (Id., p. 5). Counsel stated that had the attorney "known that the August 6, 2010 hearing was regarding the merits of Mr. Williams's postconviction petition, he would have appeared in person, subpoenaed witnesses, and made a formal request for a warrant from th[e] Court to ensure that Mr. Williams would physically appear at the hearing as statutorily required" by Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.22. (Id.). Thereafter, on September 20, 2010, counsel filed a motion for relief from judgment, in which he incorporated his pending motion for reopening of the August 6, 2010 hearing. (Id., Ex. 20). On November 29, 2010, the trial court issued an entry summarily overruling petitioner's requests, which the court referred to as "Motion Memorandum In Opposition To Motion To Reopen." (Id., Ex. 21) (emphasis in original).

In the meantime, on September 28, 2010, counsel from the Ohio Public Defender's Office also filed a timely notice of appeal on petitioner's behalf to the Ohio Court of Appeals, First Appellate District, from the trial court's August 30, 2010 entry denying post-conviction relief. (Id., Ex. 22). In the appellate brief filed by counsel, petitioner claimed as the sole assignment of error that the trial court abused its discretion and violated due process by denying the post-conviction petition "without a meaningful hearing." (Id., Ex. 23). Apparently, during the pendency of that appeal, it was brought to the appellate court's attention that petitioner's post-conviction petition had been filed with the trial court "one day late." (See id., Ex. 25). Petitioner's counsel, therefore, filed a motion to stay the appeal proceedings and to remand thematter to the trial court for a factual determination of the date on which the original postconviction petition was received by the Hamilton County Clerk of Courts. (Id.).

On May 3, 2011, the Ohio Court of Appeals summarily overruled petitioner's motion to stay the appellate proceedings and remand...