Opinion ID: 2979254
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: State Procedural History

Text: The undisputed facts of the case arise from Petitioner’s drug conviction and subsequent appeals in Ohio state courts. In December 2001, a grand jury indicted Carr on one count of manufacturing methamphetamine. State v. Carr, No. CA2004-01-006, 2005 WL 280332, at  (Ohio Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2005) (not reported in N.E.2d). A jury convicted Carr of the charge, and the trial court denied his motion for a new trial. Id. Petitioner timely appealed to the Clermont County Court of Appeals, where he contested the trial court’s denial of his request for a new trial. Id. At that time, Carr obtained new counsel. In February 2005, the appeals court rejected Petitioner’s claim and affirmed his conviction. Id. at . Carr’s appellate counsel did not inform him of the adverse judgment from the court of appeals; ultimately, Petitioner learned of the decision from the clerk of that court approximately ten months later on December 9, 2005. Carr, 2008 WL 4506127, at . On January 5, 2006, Petitioner received a letter from his appellate counsel, wherein she admitted her neglect and enclosed the briefs on appeal and the February 2005 decision of the court of appeals. Id. Carr filed a grievance against his appellate counsel with the Ohio Supreme Court Disciplinary Counsel, which confirmed her reproachful conduct in an April 4, 2006 letter. Id. One month later in early May 2006, Petitioner sought a delayed appeal of the February 2005 court of appeals decision with the Ohio Supreme Court, which declined his request as untimely No. 08-4516 Page 3 Warden, Lebanon Correctional Institution under Ohio S. Ct. Prac. R. II, § 2(A)(1)(a) in June 2006.1 Id. at . At the same time, Carr also filed an application to reopen his direct appeal with the court of appeals pursuant to Ohio App. R. 26(B)(1).2 Id. The court of appeals similarly denied his application as untimely in July 2006, and the Ohio Supreme Court declined to review that decision in October 2006. Id. B. Procedural Posture of Carr’s Federal Habeas Corpus Petition Carr filed his federal habeas petition on December 19, 2006 and alleged five bases for relief. Id. at . Ground one averred that the prosecutor improperly withheld exculpatory evidence in violation of Carr’s due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, while ground two asserted that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment by failing to raise on appeal purported prosecutorial misconduct and failing to contest improper jury instructions submitted by the prosecutor. Id. A magistrate judge reviewed the writ and concluded that Carr had defaulted on all grounds in state court and that no cause excused his delayed appeal. Id. at , . Petitioner had claimed that he required (1) a decision from the Ohio Supreme Court Disciplinary Counsel on his appellate counsel’s conduct and (2) a copy of his trial transcript before he could seek post-appeal relief for grounds one and two. Id. at , -12, -15. The magistrate rejected those assertions as legitimate causes for the delay, noting that while Carr had good cause 1 “To perfect an appeal from a court of appeals to the [Ohio] Supreme Court,” an appellant must submit a notice of appeal to “the Supreme Court within 45 days from the entry of the judgment being appealed.” Ohio S. Ct. Prac. R. II, § 2(A)(1)(a). 2 The Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure allow a criminal defendant to apply for the reopening of his appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence based on a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, so long as the applicant files the request “within ninety days” from the entry of the appellate judgment, unless he demonstrates “good cause for filing at a later time.” Ohio App. R. 26(B)(1). No. 08-4516 Page 4 Warden, Lebanon Correctional Institution for the delay until January 2006 as a result of his appellate counsel’s neglect, after that date Petitioner already had written admission of his appellate counsel’s error, and the Ohio Supreme Court did not require an appellant to submit a trial transcript when filing for delayed appeal.3 Id. at , -12, -15. Additionally, reaching the merits of grounds one and two, the magistrate judge found no evidence that would warrant relief. Id. at -10, . The district court accepted the magistrate judge’s conclusion in part and confirmed that Carr had procedurally defaulted all grounds of his habeas petition in state court. Id. at . The district court did not adopt the magistrate’s position on the merits of grounds one and two of Carr’s petition. See id. at -4. II. Subject Matter Jurisdiction & Standards of Review The Court has appellate jurisdiction over a district court’s denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 2253(a) & (c)(1)(A). The Court reviews de novo the district court’s denial of a habeas petition. White v. Mitchell, 431 F.3d 517, 524 (6th Cir. 2005). Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, the court must evaluate a habeas corpus petition and the underlying state court decision through a limited and deferential lense. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). On issues of law, a federal court may grant relief from a state conviction only when the state court adjudication resulted in a decision that (1) contravened, “or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the 3 The magistrate judge also rejected Carr’s claim that he had fairly presented the other grounds of his petition to the state court. Id. at -13, . The court did not expand the certificate of appealability to permit review of this conclusion. Carr, No. 08-4516 (6th Cir. May 29, 2009) (order granting certificate of appealability for review of grounds one and two of federal habeas petition). No. 08-4516 Page 5 Warden, Lebanon Correctional Institution Supreme Court of the United States” or (2) rested “on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” § 2254(d)(1)-(2). Under the first category, a petitioner must demonstrate that the state court arrived at a conclusion opposite to that reached by the Supreme Court on an issue of law, Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405 (2000), or that the state court reached a different result than the Supreme Court on a set of materially indistinguishable facts. Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8 (2002). With respect to the second category, a federal court must not defer to a state court’s objectively unreasonable application of clearly established federal law to the facts of the petitioner’s case. Yarborough v. Gentry, 540 U.S. 1, 5 (2003); Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 520 (2003); see also Lordi v. Ishee, 384 F.3d 189, 195 (6th Cir. 2004). A state court’s decision amounts to an objectively unreasonable application of federal law when “reasonable jurists would find it so arbitrary, unsupported or offensive to existing precedent as to fall outside the realm of plausible credible outcomes.” Barker v. Yukins, 199 F.3d 867, 872 (6th Cir. 1999).