IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

ANTWAUN L. CHANDLER, 

Petitioner, CASE NO. 2:10-CV-1150

JUDGE FROST

v. MAGISTRATE JUDGE KING

ROSS CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, 

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER

On December 27, 2011, the Magistrate Judge denied petitioner’s request for a stay of this

habeas corpus action and recommended that this action be dismissed. Report and Recommendation,

Doc. No. 18. Petitioner has filed objections to that decision and recommendation. Objection, Doc.

No. 22. For the reasons that follow, Petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED. The Report and

Recommendation is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. This action is hereby DISMISSED.

Petitioner was convicted on his plea of guilty to a charge of murder with a firearm

specification. He alleges in this action that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel in

connection with his guilty plea and that the prosecution violated his rights under the Fifth

Amendment in cross examining Petitioner during an evidentiary hearing held in connection with

Petitioner’s state post conviction proceeding. The Magistrate Judge reasoned that Petitioner’s two

claims for habeas corpus relief lack merit. In objecting to the Report and Recommendation,

Petitioner again raises all the same arguments presented to the Magistrate Judge. Petitioner

specifically alleges that he pleaded guilty to the charges against him because his attorney falsely

advised him that a co-defendant would testify against him and would identify Petitioner as the

gunman. Had he known that the co-defendant had not planned to testify against him, Petitioner

Case: 2:10-cv-01150-GLF-NMK Doc #: 23 Filed: 03/08/12 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
argues, he would not have pleaded guilty. Petitioner also complains of inconsistencies in the

testimony of his attorney at the two post-conviction hearings held in state court on this claim and

he objects to the Magistrate Judge’s characterization of the evidence against him as strong. He

likewise objects to the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning in recommending the dismissal of his claim that

he was denied his right against self-incrimination during cross-examination at his post conviction

evidentiary hearing. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the matter. 

After careful consideration of the entire record, this Court is not persuaded that Petitioner is entitled

to habeas corpus relief. As the Magistrate Judge noted, the factual findings of the state appellate

court relating to Petitioner’s claims are presumed to be correct, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1), and

Petitioner has offered nothing to rebut that presumption. Moreover, the resolution of the state courts

of Petitioner’s claims was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established

federal law, nor was it based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence

presented. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Under these circumstances, Petitioner’s objections are

OVERRULED. 

The Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 18, is ADOPTED AND AFFIRMED. This

action is hereby DISMISSED. 

The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter FINAL JUDGMENT.

Petitioner has asked that the Court issue a certificate of appealability. Where, as here, a

claim has been denied on the merits, a certificate of appealability may issue only if the petitioner

"has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2). 

This standard is a codification of Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983). Slack v. McDaniel, 529

2

Case: 2:10-cv-01150-GLF-NMK Doc #: 23 Filed: 03/08/12 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
U.S. 473, 489 (2000). To make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a

petitioner must show 

that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree

that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or

that the issues presented were "‘adequate to deserve encouragement

to proceed further.'" Barefoot, 463 U.S., at 893, and n.4 . . . . 

Id. The Court is persuaded that reasonable jurists could debate whether claim one, in which

Petitioner asserts the ineffective assistance of counsel in inducing his guilty plea, should have been

resolved differently. The Court therefore GRANTS Petitioner’s request for a certificate of

appealability on this claim and certifies the following issue for appeal:

Was Petitioner denied the effective assistance of counsel in

connection with his guilty plea? 

The Court is not persuaded that reasonable jurists would debate whether the Court correctly

dismissed claim two on the merits. Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability on that claim

is therefore DENIED. 

Petitioner has also submitted an affidavit of indigency and request to proceed in forma

pauperis on appeal. See Exhibit to Objections. Because the filing fee assessment procedures

prescribed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act are not applicable to appeals taken in habeas corpus

matters, see Kincade v. Sparkman, 117 F.3d 949 (6th Cir. 1997), the issue is simply whether

petitioner can afford the $455.00 filing fee for an appeal. Upon review of Petitioner’s financial

affidavit, the Court concludes that he cannot. Petitioner’s request for leave to proceed on appeal 

in forma pauperis is therefore GRANTED. 

 /s/ Gregory L. Frost 

GREGORY L. FROST

United States District Judge

3

Case: 2:10-cv-01150-GLF-NMK Doc #: 23 Filed: 03/08/12 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>