From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dillingham v. Warden, Chillicothe Corr. Inst.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI
Oct 30, 2014
Case No. 1:13-cv-468 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 30, 2014)

Opinion

Case No. 1:13-cv-468

10-30-2014

CHARLES DILLINGHAM, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, CHILLICOTHE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent.



Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

ORDER

This habeas corpus case is before the Court on the Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz (Doc. No. 33), his Supplemental Report and Recommendations after recommittal (Doc. No. 37), and his Second Supplemental Report and Recommendations after further recommittal (Doc. No. 41). Petitioner has filed Objections to each of these Reports (Doc. Nos. 35, 39, & 43).

As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), the District Judge has reviewed de novo all portions of the Reports to which Petitioner has made objection.

Regarding the First Ground for Relief based on a claim of insufficient evidence, the Court agrees that there was adequate identification of Petitioner as the shooter to permit his conviction. A habeas court must give double deference to a finding of sufficient evidence under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. Coleman v. Johnson, 566 U.S. ___, ___, 132 S. Ct. 2060, 2062, (2012)(per curiam); Brown v. Konteh, 567 F.3d 191, 205 (6th Cir. 2009). Given that deferenc, the First Ground for Relief is without merit.

The court of appeals decision that Petitioner possessed the weapon he used to commit the assaults with a separate animus from the shootings themselves is an objectively reasonable application of Supreme Court Double Jeopardy precedent. Therefore the Second Ground for Relief must be dismissed with prejudice.

Petitioner's Third Ground for Relief on the basis of newly-discovered evidence is barred by Petitioner's procedural default in presenting this claim to the Ohio court of appeals on direct appeal. Ohio's criminal res judicata doctrine relied on by the court of appeals has been repeatedly upheld by the Sixth Circuit as an adequate and independent state ground of decision. Durr v. Mitchell, 487 F.3d 423, 432 (6 Cir. 2007); Buell v. Mitchell, 274 F.3d 337 (6 Cir. 2001); Coleman v. Mitchell, 268 F.3d 417 (6 Cir. 2001); Byrd v. Collins, 209 F.3d 486, 521-22 (6 Cir. 2000); Rust v. Zent, 17 F.3d 155, 160-61 (6 Cir. 1994).

The Magistrate Judge's denial of an evidentiary hearing as sought by Petitioner is required by the Supreme Court's decision in Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011).

Petitioner's Fourth Ground for Relief claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel is barred by his procedural default in not timely appealing to the Ohio Supreme Court. See Bonilla v. Hurley, 370 F.3d 494, 497 (6 Cir. 2004).

Based on the de novo review as reflected in this analysis, Petitioner's Objections are OVERRULED and the Magistrate Judge's Reports and Recommendations are ADOPTED. The Clerk will enter judgment herein dismissing the Petition with prejudice.

Because reasonable jurists would not disagree with this conclusion, Petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability and the Court hereby certifies to the Sixth Circuit that any appeal would be objectively frivolous and therefore should not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. October 30, 2014

/s/_________

Susan J. Dlott

Chief United States District Judge


Summaries of

Dillingham v. Warden, Chillicothe Corr. Inst.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI
Oct 30, 2014
Case No. 1:13-cv-468 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 30, 2014)
Case details for

Dillingham v. Warden, Chillicothe Corr. Inst.

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES DILLINGHAM, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, CHILLICOTHE CORRECTIONAL…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI

Date published: Oct 30, 2014

Citations

Case No. 1:13-cv-468 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 30, 2014)

Citing Cases

Dilingham v. Warden

The Magistrate Judge concluded Grounds One and Two should be dismissed on the merits, that Grounds Three and…