Matthews v. Bracy, No. 1:2017cv01503 - Document 20 (N.D. Ohio 2020)
Court Description: Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 9/9/3030. The Court overrules Petitioners objections, adopts Magistrate Judge Parkers Report and Recommendation, and dismisses Petitioners § 2254 petition. The Court certifies that no basis exists upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. re 14 Report and Recommendation, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2254) (S,KM)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Matthews v. Bracy Doc. 20 Case: 1:17-cv-01503-JG Doc #: 20 Filed: 09/09/20 1 of 6. PageID #: 1050 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO -----------------------------------------------------------------KENNETH MATTHEWS, : : Petitioner, : : vs. : : CHARMAINE BRACY, Warden : : Respondent. : ------------------------------------------------------------------ CASE NO. 1:17-cv-1503 OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Doc. 1] JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: On March 27, 2014, an Ohio jury found Petitioner Kenneth Matthews guilty of murder and felonious assault. 1 He now petitions for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to vacate his conviction and sentence. 2 Respondent Bracy opposes the petition. 3 After a referral, the assigned magistrate judge recommends denying the petition, 4 and Matthews objects. 5 For the following reasons, the Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections, ADOPTS the report and recommendation, and DISMISSES this petition. I. Background On September 5, 2013, a Cuyahoga County Grand Jury indicted Petitioner Matthews on one count of aggravated murder, 6 one count of murder, 7 two counts of felonious assault, 8 and one count of firearm discharge on or near prohibited premises. 9 1 Doc. 8-1 at 13-19. Doc. 1. 3 Doc. 8. 4 Doc. 14. 5 Doc. 17. 6 Ohio Rev. Code § 2903.01(A). 7 Ohio Rev. Code § 2903.02(B). 8 Ohio Rev. Code §§ 2903.11(A)(1) and (A)(2). 9 Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.162(A)(3); Doc. 8-1 at 5-8 (indictment). 2 Dockets.Justia.com Case: 1:17-cv-01503-JG Doc #: 20 Filed: 09/09/20 2 of 6. PageID #: 1051 Case No. 1:17-cv-1503 Gwin, J. The indictment alleged that Matthews shot and killed Bruce Jernigan with a firearm on a public road or highway. 10 Matthews pled not guilty. 11 The case went to trial. The state presented eyewitness testimony that Matthews drove up to Jernigan and two friends. 12 After a vocal altercation, Matthews exited his vehicle and shot Jernigan in the face. 13 On March 27, 2014, the jury found Matthews guilty on the murder count and both felonious assault counts, all with firearm specifications. 14 On March 31, 2014, the trial court sentenced Matthews to eighteen years to life and ordered restitution. 15 On April 22, 2014, Matthews appealed. 16 On January 22, 2015, the Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction but reversed the restitution order. 17 On August 21, 2015, Matthews, then pro se, moved to file a delayed appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court. 18 On October 28, 2015, the Ohio Supreme Court denied Matthews’ motion and dismissed the case. 19 On June 1, 2016, Matthews, still pro se, applied to reopen his direct appeal with the Ohio Court of Appeals. 20 On August 30, 2016, the Ohio Court of Appeals denied 10 Id. Id. at 12. 12 Id. at 90. These facts are taken from the Ohio Court of Appeals’ opinion on direct appeal. The Court 11 presumes they are correct unless Petitioner rebuts them with clear and convincing evidence. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). 13 Doc. 8-1 at 90. 14 Doc. 8-1 at 13-19. 15 Id. at 26. 16 Id. at 28. 17 Id. at 88-96. 18 Id. at 101. 19 Id. at 115. 20 Id. at 116, 228. -2- Case: 1:17-cv-01503-JG Doc #: 20 Filed: 09/09/20 3 of 6. PageID #: 1052 Case No. 1:17-cv-1503 Gwin, J. Matthews’ motion as untimely. 21 On December 8, 2016, Matthews moved for reconsideration. 22 On February 8, 2017, the Ohio Court of Appeals denied the motion. 23 On July 17, 2017, Matthews, again pro se, petitioned this Court for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 24 He seeks to vacate his conviction and sentence on three grounds: GROUND ONE: There was insufficient evidence to convict Matthews for murder under O.R.C. 2903.02(B), which violated his Due Process protections under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. . . . GROUND TWO: Matthews was denied a fair trial when the trial court denied the State’s request to provide the jury with a lesser included offense instruction of involuntary manslaughter on Matthews’s Count 2 of murder, which violated his Due Process protections under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. . . . GROUND THREE: Matthews received ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel failed to raise as a claim in Matthews’s direct appeal the trial court’s denial of the State’s request for a lesser included offense instruction of involuntary manslaughter on the Count 2 charge of murder, in violation of his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. 25 On September 9, 2019, Magistrate Judge Parker issued a report and recommendation, recommending this Court deny Matthews’ petition. 26 On November 12, 2019, Matthews objected to the report and recommendation. 27 21 Id. at 142. Id. at 172. 23 Id. at 197. 22 24 Doc. 1. Id. at 4-6. 26 Doc. 14. 27 Doc. 19. 25 -3- Case: 1:17-cv-01503-JG Doc #: 20 Filed: 09/09/20 4 of 6. PageID #: 1053 Case No. 1:17-cv-1503 Gwin, J. II. Discussion Matthews objects to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that this Court find that “Matthews’ habeas claims are procedurally defaulted, because he failed to fairly present them at each level of the state courts’ ordinary review process.” 28 The Court reviews the objected-to report portion de novo. 29 A federal court may not reach the merits of claims that a state prisoner procedurally defaulted. 30 “If, due to the petitioner's failure to comply with [a] procedural rule, the state court declines to reach the merits of the issue, and the state procedural rule is an independent and adequate grounds for precluding relief, the claim is procedurally defaulted.” 31 The procedural default rule comes from the concept that federal courts do not second-guess state-law procedural rulings. If a state court has decided a state procedural issue, federal courts almost always accept the state court’s ruling on the state-law procedural issue. The Sixth Circuit uses a three-step analysis to determine whether a claim is procedurally defaulted. 32 Under this test, the Court decides whether: (1) the petitioner failed to comply with an applicable state procedural rule; (2) the state courts actually 28 Doc. 19 at 2; Doc. 14 at 21. Matthews also objects to the report’s recommendation that his grounds should be denied for lack of merit and that ground two is not a cognizable claim. Doc. 19 at 6, 10, 14, 19. Because the Court concludes that Matthews has procedurally defaulted on all three of his grounds, the Court does not consider these objections. 29 18 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). 30 Reed v. Farley, 512 U.S. 339, 354-55 (1994); Williams v. Anderson, 460 F.3d 789, 805-06 (6th Cir. 2006). 31 Williams, 460 F.3d at 806. 32 Maupin v. Smith, 785 F.2d 135, 138-39 (6th Cir. 1986). -4- Case: 1:17-cv-01503-JG Doc #: 20 Filed: 09/09/20 5 of 6. PageID #: 1054 Case No. 1:17-cv-1503 Gwin, J. enforced the state procedural sanction; and (3) the state procedural bar is an “independent and adequate” state ground on which the state can foreclose federal review. 33 Matthews has procedurally defaulted on all three of his grounds. He failed to comply with Ohio’s deadline for filing appeals and the Ohio Supreme Court denied Matthews’s motion to file a delayed appeal. 34 “[A]pplicable Ohio court rules indicate that the denial of a motion for a delayed appeal is a procedural ruling, not a ruling on the merits.”35 “[Matthews’] grounds for relief have been procedurally defaulted.” 36 The Court may excuse a petitioner’s procedural default if the petitioner shows “cause” for the procedural default and also shows “actual prejudice” from the alleged error. 37 “Demonstrating cause requires showing that an ‘objective factor external to the defense impeded [petitioner’s] efforts to comply’ with the state procedural rule.” 38 It is not necessary, however, to resolve the issue of prejudice if a petitioner does not show cause for the default. 39 Matthews says he was unaware of Ohio’s filing deadlines. 40 He says his pro se status and prior counsels’ failure to tell him about the filing deadlines should excuse his procedural default. 41 33 Id. 34 Doc. 8-1 at 115. 35 Bonilla v. Hurley, 370 F.3d 494, 497 (6th Cir. 2004). Id. (citing Simpson v. Jones, 238 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir. 2000)). 37 Maupin, 785 F.2d at 138-39. 38 Franklin v. Anderson, 434 F.3d 412, 417 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 488 36 (1986)). 39 See Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. 527, 533 (1986). 40 Doc. 19 at 4. 41 Id. -5- Case: 1:17-cv-01503-JG Doc #: 20 Filed: 09/09/20 6 of 6. PageID #: 1055 Case No. 1:17-cv-1503 Gwin, J. The Sixth Circuit has held that a petitioner’s “pro se status before the Ohio Supreme Court is insufficient to establish cause to excuse his procedural default.” 42 And the Sixth Circuit has held that a petitioner’s “ignorance of the law and procedural requirements for filing a timely notice of appeal is insufficient to establish cause to excuse his procedural default.” 43 The Sixth Circuit’s precedent stops Matthews argument that there is cause for his procedural default. This Court may not consider Matthews’ grounds for habeas corpus relief. III. Conclusion The Court concludes that Petitioner Matthews has procedurally defaulted on all three grounds raised in his petition for habeas corpus relief. For the reasons above, this Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections, ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Parker’s Report and Recommendation, and DISMISSES Petitioner’s § 2254 petition. The Court certifies that no basis exists upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. 44 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 9, 2020 s/ James S. Gwin JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 42 43 44 Bonilla, 370 F.3d at 498 (citing Hannah v. Conley, 49 F.3d 1193, 1197 (6th Cir. 1995)). Id. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). -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.
