IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER MONCRIEF,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN, WARREN 

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:10-cv-117

Judge Peter C. Economus

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Petitioner Christopher Moncrief, a state prisoner, filed this action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

alleging that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution of the United States. This matter is 

before the Court on Magistrate Judge Abel’s March 1, 2012 Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. 

29.) On April 19, 2012, Petitioner filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, objecting

only as to his second ground for habeas relief, in which he alleges denial of effective assistance 

of counsel. (Dkt. 29.) 

The state courts rejected Petitioner’s argument that he was denied effective assistance of 

counsel. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate 

that the state courts’ determination was (1) “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application 

of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” or

(2) “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the 

State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). 

When he pled guilty, Moncrief stated to the court that he understood the charges against 

him, understood his constitutional rights, had signed a written guilty plea, and was entering the 

plea of his own free will. (Dkt. 12 at 6–10.) When asked, "[H]as anyone promised you anything 

Case: 2:10-cv-00117-PCE-MRA Doc #: 30 Filed: 07/30/12 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2

or threatened you to cause you to sign these forms pleading guilty to these charges?", Moncrief 

responded, “No.” (Dkt. 12 at 10, lines 14–17.)

When Moncrief sought relief in state court, he identified no specific threat or inducement 

that would have rendered his guilty plea involuntary or coerced. In a self-serving affidavit, he 

alleges only that his attorney, Christopher Cicero, “coerced [Moncrief] into not going on with 

[his] trial” and “threaten[ed] to fight [Moncrief] if [he] decided to plead out, and then changed 

[his] mind the next day.” (Moncrief Aff. Dec. 14, 2006, Dkt. 10-1 at 47.) The Magistrate Judge 

stated in his Report and Recommendation that Attorney Cicero’s alleged “statement was not 

coercive. It merely advised Moncrief that a guilty plea is a serious act, admitting guilt, and that 

he should not enter a plea of guilty with the thought that he could change his mind the next day.” 

(Dkt. 20 at 11.) Even assuming the truth of Moncrief’s affidavit, this Court agrees with the 

Magistrate Judge that Attorney Cicero’s alleged statement was not coercive.

Upon de novo review as required by 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B), this Court finds that the 

state courts’ determination that Petitioner was not denied effective assistance of counsel was not 

contrary to, and did not involve an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law. 

Nor was the determination “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the 

evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The Court therefore 

ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED, 

this action is hereby DISMISSED, and the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment for 

Respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/s/ Peter C. Economus - July 30, 2012

Case: 2:10-cv-00117-PCE-MRA Doc #: 30 Filed: 07/30/12 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>