Source: http://ky.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180313_0000197.WKY.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 14:12:30+00:00

Document:
United States District Court David J. Hale, Judge.
LaShawn Johnson filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Docket No. 1) Respondent Randy White opposes Johnson's petition. (D.N. 15) The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Colin Lindsay, who submitted Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation. (D.N. 29) Judge Lindsay recommended that the Court deny Johnson's petition with prejudice and deny a certificate of appealability. (Id., PageID # 358) White and Johnson timely filed objections to Judge Lindsay's report and recommendation. (D.N. 30; D.N. 31) While Johnson objects to Judge Lindsay's recommendation that his petition be denied (D.N. 31), White took “the unusual position” of objecting to the favorable report to correct an oversight in failing to bring a Sixth Circuit case to Judge Lindsay's attention (D.N. 30). For the reasons set forth below, White's objection will be sustained, and Johnson's objection will be overruled. The Court will adopt in part Judge Lindsay's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation and deny Johnson's habeas petition.
A jury found Johnson guilty of first-degree robbery and first-degree burglary and sentenced him to twenty-five years' imprisonment. Johnson v. Commonwealth, 327 S.W.3d 501, 505 (Ky. 2010). Johnson appealed to the Kentucky Supreme Court, which hears direct appeals from circuit-court judgments imposing prison sentences of twenty years or more. See Ky. Const. § 110(2)(b); Johnson, 327 S.W.3d at 503. In his direct appeal, Johnson argued that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on second-degree robbery and second-degree burglary and in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on his motion to suppress DNA evidence. Johnson, 327 S.W.3d at 503. The Kentucky Supreme Court rejected Johnson's arguments and affirmed the trial court's judgment. Id.
This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Colin Lindsay for Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (D.N. 10, PageID # 40; D.N. 23) Both White and Johnson filed objections to the report and recommendation. (D.N. 30; D.N. 31) The Court reviews de novo the portions of the report and recommendation to which objections are filed. See Walkup v. United States, No. 1:09-CR-00026-TBR-HBB, 2016 WL 6780332, at *1 (W.D. Ky. Nov. 15, 2016).
A district court “shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).
§ 2254(b)(1). “An applicant shall not be deemed to have exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State, within the meaning of this section, if he has the right under the law of the State to raise, by any available procedure, the question presented.” § 2254(c). “In order to exhaust a claim, the petitioner ‘must “fairly present” his claim in each appropriate state court (including a state supreme court with powers of discretionary review), thereby alerting that court to the federal nature of the claim.'” Woolbright v. Crews, 791 F.3d 628, 631 (6th Cir. 2015) (quoting Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004)). “When a petitioner has failed to fairly present his claims to the state courts and no state remedy remains, his claims are considered to be procedurally defaulted.” Id. “If a petitioner's claims are procedurally defaulted, they may not be reviewed by a habeas court unless he can demonstrate ‘cause' and ‘prejudice.'” Id. (quoting McMeans v. Brigano, 228 F.3d 674, 680 (6th Cir. 2000)).
§ 2254(d). “Under the ‘contrary to' clause, a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by th[e] [Supreme] Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than th[e] [Supreme] Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412-13 (2000). “Under the ‘unreasonable application' clause, a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from th[e] [Supreme] Court's decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner's case.” Id. at 413.

References: § 2254
 v. 
 § 110
 § 636
 v. 
 § 2254

§ 2254
 § 2254
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 

§ 2254
 v.