Wogenstahl v. Mitchell
Decision Date | 02 February 2012 |
Docket Number | No. 07-4285,07-4285 |
Parties | JEFFREY A. WOGENSTAHL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. BETTY MITCHELL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206
File Name: 12a0031p.06
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati.
No. 99-00843—Thomas M. Rose, District Judge.
Before: MOORE, GIBBONS, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.
ARGUED: Andrew P. Avellano, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant. Justin M. Lovett, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Andrew P. Avellano, Columbus, Ohio, Gregory W. Meyers, OFFICE OF THE OHIO PUBLIC DEFENDER, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant. Justin M. Lovett, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee.
GIBBONS, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which McKEAGUE, J., joined. MOORE, J. (pp. 48–49), delivered a separate opinion concurring in the judgment.
JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Petitioner–appellant Jeffrey A. Wogenstahl appeals the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking relief from both his conviction for aggravated murder withdeath specifications and his resulting death sentence. For the following reasons, we affirm the district court and deny Wogenstahl's petition.
The facts underlying Wogenstahl's habeas case, as determined by the Ohio Supreme Court, are as follows:
[Wogenstahl's] dark-brown four-door 1978 Oldsmobile Omega pull into and then out of the restaurant parking lot.
At approximately 3:00 a.m., while the women were at the Waffle House, [Wogenstahl] drove to Peggy's apartment and spoke with Eric. According to Eric, [Wogenstahl] claimed that Peggy needed to see him (Eric) at Troy Beard's house. Beard was Peggy's friend who lived approximately three blocks from the apartment. Eric locked the door to the apartment, leaving the children unattended, and drove with [Wogenstahl] to the vicinity of Beard's residence. [Wogenstahl] dropped Eric off approximately one block from Beard's apartment. According to Eric, [Wogenstahl] said that he would drive around the block and then pick Eric up to drive him home. When Eric arrived at the residence, Beard told Eric that he (Beard) had not seen Peggy at all that evening. Eric left Beard's apartment and waited for [Wogenstahl] to drive him home. [Wogenstahl] did not return. Eventually, Eric walked home and found that the door to the apartment was unlocked. He checked on the children and noticed that ten-year-old Amber was missing. However, Eric mistakenly assumed that Amber might have been spending the night at a friend's house. Thus, he mentioned nothing to Peggy when she returned home later that morning.
On the morning of November 24, 1991, Vickie Mozena was working at a United Dairy Farmers store in Harrison, Ohio, near the Ohio–Indiana border. At approximately 3:15 a.m., Mozena saw a car resembling [Wogenstahl's] Oldsmobile drive past the store in the direction of Bright, Indiana. Mozena observed the silhouette of a man driving the vehicle, and what appeared to be a young girl next to him in the passenger's seat. Between 3:45 and 4:00 a.m., Mozena saw the same vehicle parked at a car wash across the street from the United Dairy Farmers store. The vehicle pulled out of the car wash and into the farthest corner of the United Dairy Farmers parking lot. The driver did not exit the vehicle for several minutes, and Mozena thought that she was about to be robbed. However, [Wogenstahl] exited the vehicle, came into the store, and purchased a pack of cigarettes. At that time, Mozena noticed what appeared to be dirt or blood under [Wogenstahl's] fingernails. Later that morning, Mozena once again saw [Wogenstahl's] car parked across the street at the car wash. According to Mozena, there was a man inside the car, presumably cleaning the interior.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rogers v. Doom, 10-5072
...on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.'" Wogenstahl v. Mitchell, 668 F.3d 307, 320 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)). To find that Rogers received ineffective assistance of counsel, his counsel's performance ......