Harrison v. Morgan, No. 1:2013cv02208 - Document 5 (N.D. Ohio 2014)
Court Description: Memorandum of Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 3/6/14 setting forth the dismissal of the petition filed under 28 USC Section 2254. (Related Doc. 1 ) (M,G)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Harrison v. Morgan Doc. 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO LORENZO HARRISON, Petitioner, v. DONALD MORGAN, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:13 CV 2208 JUDGE JAMES GWIN MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER On October 7, 2013, petitioner pro se Lorenzo Harrison filed the above-captioned habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is incarcerated in an Ohio penal institution, having been convicted of aggravated arson on February 22, 2000, for which he received two year prison sentence. See, State v. Harrison, Cuy. Cty Comm. Pls. No. CR-99-3842422, cpdocket.cp.cuyahogacounty.us/CR_CaseInformation_Docket. It is evident on the face of the petition and memorandum in support that petitioner’s sentence was completed and has expired. He nevertheless argues he meets the "in custody" requirement for purposes of seeking habeas relief because his sentence for a later conviction was enhanced by the aggravated arson conviction. However, once a sentence has fully expired, the collateral consequence of a subsequent sentence enhancement does not render a prisoner in custody to challenge his conviction. Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 491-92 (1989); Steverson v. Summers, 258 F.3d 520, 523 (6th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, the petition is denied and this action is dismissed pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Further, the court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § Dockets.Justia.com 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith, and that there is no basis on which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Fed.R.App.P. 22(b). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 6, 2014 s/ James S. Gwin JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2
]]>
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.
