Jamison v. Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution, No. 3:2009cv00297 - Document 24 (S.D. Ohio 2011)
Court Description: DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (DOC. # 17 ) IN THEIR ENTIRETY; OVERRULING PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS THERETO (DOC. # 23 ); JUDGMENT TO ENTER IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT AND AGAINST PETITIONER, DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (DOC. # 2 ) IN ITS ENTIRETY; CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND ANTICIPATED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS DENIED; TERMINATION ENTRY. Signed by Judge Walter H Rice on 09/23/11. (pb1)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-----_ ......... _._-- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION BRIAN A. JAMISON, Petitioner, Case No. 3:09-cv-297 vs. JUDGE WALTER HERBERT RICE WARDEN, CHILLICOTHE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (DOC. #17) IN THEIR ENTIRETY; OVERRULING PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS THERETO (DOC. #23); JUDGMENT TO ENTER IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT AND AGAINST PETITIONER, DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (DOC. #2) IN ITS ENTIRETY; CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND ANTICIPATED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS DENIED; TERMINATION ENTRY Based on the reasoning and citations of authority set forth in the Report and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge, filed January 31, 2011 (Doc. #17), as well as on a thorough de novo review of this Court's file and the applicable law said judicial filing is adopted in its entirety. Petitioner's objections I (Doc. #23) are overruled, and all Grounds for Relief set forth in the Petition (Doc. #2) are dismissed with prejudice. Nevertheless, as the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals explained in Moody v. Polk, 408 F.3d 141 (4th Cir. 2005): Ordinarily, when a state court decision is con trary to" governing Supreme Court law, we engage in de novo review of the prisoner's claim. Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 689-90 (4th Cir.2001). Here, however, the state court provided two alternative, independently sufficient grounds for its holding - only one of which relied on a rule of law "contrary to" Supreme Court case law. An error in a state court's analysis does not render the state court's decision contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent when that analysis is not necessary to the state court's resolution of the claim. Rather, because the state court's holding on the issue of performance would alone suffice to defeat Moody's ineffective assistance claim, the decision of the state court would only be contrary to or an unreasonable application of Strickland if the state court's evaluation of both prongs were deficient under this standard. II Moody, 408 F.3d at 147. As in Moody, the state court's holding on the issue of performance alone was sufficient to defeat Petitioner's ineffective assistance claim. Petitioner has not demonstrated that the state court's holding with respect to that first prong was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Therefore, even if the state court's decision with respect to the prejudice prong is deemed to be contrary to Supreme Court precedent, there is no basis for granting the requested relief. 5 Given that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and, further that the Court's decision herein would not be debatable among reasonable jurists, and because any appeal from this Court's decision would be objectively frivolous, Petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability and denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Judgment will be entered accordingly in favor of Respondent and against Petitioner, DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE all grounds asserted in the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. This case is hereby ordered terminated upon the docket records of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, at Dayton. Date: September 23, 2011 WALTER HERBERT RICE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies to: Petitioner Counsel for Respondent 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
