Freeman v. Wainwright, No. 1:2017cv01368 - Document 15 (N.D. Ohio 2018)
Court Description: Opinion & Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 9/10/18. The Court, for the reasons set forth in this order, overrules petitioner's objections, adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and denies Freeman's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (Related Docs. 1 and 11 ) (D,MA)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Freeman v. Wainwright Doc. 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO -----------------------------------------------------: : : Petitioner, : : vs. : : WARDEN LYNEAL WAINWRIGHT, : : Respondent. : : -----------------------------------------------------DAMIEN FREEMAN, CASE NO. 1:17-CV-1368 OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Doc. 1] JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: On December 11, 2001, Petitioner Damian Freeman plead guilty to the murder of elevenmonth-old Ciera Freeman and an Ohio court sentenced him fifteen years to life. Proceeding pro se, on June 28, 2017, he petitioned the Court for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 The State filed a motion to dismiss,2 which Freeman opposed.3 Magistrate Judge William H. Baughman Jr. recommends denying his petition,4 and Freeman objects.5 For the following reasons, the Court OVERRULES Pet“t“oner s ob”ect“ons, ADOPTS Ma’“strate Jud’e Bau’hman s Report and Recommendat“on, and DENIES the Petition. I. Background Freeman s Pet“t“on to vacate a 2001 conv“ct“on ra“ses obv“ous statute o‘ l“m“tat“ons issues. A habeas petition filed under § 2254 is subject to a one-year limitations period. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). 1 Doc. 1. Doc. 9. 3 Doc. 10. 4 Doc. 11. 5 Doc. 13. 2 Dockets.Justia.com Case No. 1:17-CV-1368 Gwin, J. In September 2001, a Cuyahoga County Grand Jury indicted Petitioner Freeman for felony murder,6 felonious assault,7 and endangering children.8 The indictment came after the August 23, 2001 death of 11-month-old Ciera Freeman.9 On December 11, 2001, Freeman pled guilty to the felony murder count and the Cuyahoga Court of Common Pleas nolled10 the other two counts. The court then sentenced Freeman to an indeterminate sentence of fifteen years to life and a term of post-release control.11 On August 7, 2002, Freeman moved the Cuyahoga Court of Common Pleas to withdraw his plea and appeal his conviction;12 the Court of Appeals of Ohio denied this motion in September of 2002.13 In March and July of 2004, Freeman moved again to withdraw his guilty plea under Ohio Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. These motions were denied, and the Eighth Appellate District of the Court of Appeals of Ohio dismissed his appeal sua sponte on April 15, 2005.14 Freeman did not appeal this Court of Appeals dismissal decision. On September 15, 2015, Freeman filed a pro se motion with the Cuyahoga Court of Common Pleas to vacate his conviction and sentence.15 On October 15, 2015, the court denied Freeman s mot“on.16 Freeman appealed; on December 15, 2016, the Eighth Appellate District of the Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed his conviction.17 However, the court held that the trial court s “mpos“t“on o‘ post-release control was improper, and directed the trial court to enter a nunc pro tunc order removing the imposition of post-release control.18 Otherwise, the Ohio Court of 6 O.R.C. 2903.02(B) O.R.C. 413757 8 O.R.C. 2919.22 9 See Doc. 9-2 (state court record) at 1-3. 10 [T]o abandon (a suit or prosecution); to have (a case) dismissed by a nolle prosequi. Black s Law D“ct“onary (8th ed. 2004). 11 Doc. 9-2 at 6. 12 Id. at 7. 13 Id. at 14. 14 Id. at 22. 15 Id. at 23. 16 Id. at 60. 17 Id. at 150. 7 18 Id. -2- Case No. 1:17-CV-1368 Gwin, J. Appeals affirmed the 2001 sentence. On December 27, 2016, the Court of Common Pleas journalized this nunc pro tunc order, vacating his original sentence and replacing it with an order that did not include post-release control.19 Freeman appealed the appeals court s decision to the Ohio Supreme Court. On May 31, 2017, the Ohio Supreme Court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the appeal.20 Freeman filed his habeas petition with the Court on June 28, 2017.21 In a July 30, 2018 Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Baughman recommended that the Court dismiss Freeman s pet“t“on as untimely, because it was filed beyond the one-year limitations period imposed by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Petitioner objected. II. Discussion The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to conduct a de novo review only of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which the parties have objected.22 Freeman raises two objections to Magistrate Judge Bau’hman s Report and Recommendation. First, he argues that the December 27, 2016 nunc pro tunc order qualifies as a new judgment re-starting 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) s one-year statute of limitations, making his petition timely. Second, he argues that the nunc pro tunc order was unlawful because it substantively changed his sentence. Petitioner s first objection is overruled. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A), the one-year statute of limitations for federal habeas relief began to run when the [petitioner s] judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such rev“ew. Under th“s prov“s“on, the one-year limitations period began to run—at the latest—in 2005, when the t“me to appeal the Court o‘ Appeal s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea 19 Id. at 152. Doc. 1-2. 21 Doc. 1. 22 See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 -3- Case No. 1:17-CV-1368 Gwin, J. expired.23 Petitioner, relying on the S“xth C“rcu“t s dec“s“on Crangle v. Kelly,24 argues that the nunc pro tunc order modifying his sentence is a new judgment reviving the statute of limitations.25 However, the Crangle court noted that resentencings which benefit the pet“t“oner do not d“sturb the ‘“nal underly“n’ “n“t“al ”ud’ment, wh“ch cont“nues to const“tute[] a ‘“nal ”ud’ment. 26 And in Cortez v. Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution, the Sixth Circuit held that resentencings which remove post-conviction sentencing provisions do no restart the statute of limitations for habeas relief.27 Freeman s second objection is also overruled. His objection to the entry of the nunc pro tunc order seemingly turns on the idea that the order was used improperly, because it altered the substantive terms of his sentence instead of correcting a clerical error.28 Whatever the merits of this argument, it does not allege an injury. Invalidating the nunc pro tunc order would not benefit Freeman, as the order vacated the portion of his original sentence that imposed post-release supervision. Freeman s petition also raises arguments regarding the substantive sufficiency of his guilty plea under state law. Even “‘ Freeman s pet“t“on were not time-barred, the Court could not consider these arguments because they do not raise constitutional claims.29 Furthermore, the 2016 Ohio Court of Appeals decision considered and rejected Freeman s cla“ms regarding the legal sufficiency See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S. Ct. 641, 646 (2012) ( [F]or a state pr“soner who does not seek rev“ew “n a State s h“’hest court, the ”ud’ment becomes ‘“nal [‘or the purposes o‘ § 2244(d)(1)(A)] on the date that the t“me ‘or seek“n’ such rev“ew exp“res. ). 24 838 F.3d 673 (6th Cir. 2016). 25 See Crangle, 838 F.3d at 680 (nunc pro tunc order imposing post-release control materially increased restrictions on petitioner s l“berty, and thus constituted a new sentence resetting one-year statute of limitations under § 2244(d)(1)(A)). 26 Id. at 678 (alteration in original) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(b)). 27 Cortez v. Warden Chillicothe Corr. Inst., No. 17-3530, 2018 WL 2382456, at *2 (6th Cir. Feb. 16, 2018) (order removing requirement that petitioner register as a sex offender does not restart statute of limitations). 28 He did not raise this argument in his petition, and Magistrate Judge Baughman did not discuss it in his Report and Recommendation. 29 See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) ( [A] district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. ). Althou’h couched as a cla“m about the e‘‘ect“veness o‘ h“s counsel, Freeman s petition challenges the legal sufficiency of his plea and not the assistance of his lawyer. 23 -4- Case No. 1:17-CV-1368 Gwin, J. of his plea.30 III. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Freeman s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. IT IS SO ORDERED s/ Dated: September 10, 2018 James S. Gwin JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 30 See Doc. 9-2 at 149. See also Davis v. Straub, 430 F.3d 281, 291 (6th Cir. 2005) (federal court may not grant writ on the grounds that state court erred in interpretation of its own law). -5-
]]>
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.
