Rodriguez v. Warden, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 940 F. Supp. 2d 704

Petitioner Mario A. Rodriguez was convicted in May 2009 in Preble County, Ohio, of possession of heroin (over 250 grams) and possession of criminal tools; sentenced to 10 years; presently incarcerated in London Correctional Institution.
A traffic stop on Interstate 70 by Trooper Fussner led to a stop lasting roughly 50 seconds; the driver showed signs of unease and unusual conduct.
During a pat-down, Trooper Fussner felt a large object; two black packages were recovered from Rodriguez’s waistband and matched to heroin after lab testing.
A motion for a new trial was filed with newly appointed counsel; the trial court denied the motion after a hearing.
The Second District Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of relief and rejected Rodriguez’s claims; the Ohio Supreme Court declined to exercise jurisdiction.
In federal habeas proceedings, Rodriguez asserts two grounds: (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for not filing a motion to suppress and (2) an asserted error in denying a new trial; the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the petition presents a cognizable federal claim about the denial of a new trial.	Rodriguez argues the state court’s denial violated federal due process.	Respondent contends the claim is a state-law matter not cognizable on federal habeas review.	Cognizable only to extent of constitutional due process; ultimately rejected as non-merits-based.
Whether trial counsel’s failure to file a suppression motion constitutes ineffective assistance.	Rodriguez asserts ineffective assistance under Strickland for failing to file to suppress.	Counsel’s decision was reasonable trial strategy given plea offer and likelihood of suppression denial.	Denied; Ohio court reasonably denied the claim under Strickland’s defense-by-strategy and prejudice prongs.
Whether Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims are procedurally defaulted and barred.	Petitioner did not properly raise these claims at trial.	State court properly defaulted and enforced waiver; no cause to excuse default.	Procedurally defaulted; no cause or prejudice shown to excuse default.

Pudelski v. Wilson, 576 F.3d 595 (6th Cir. 2009) (reaffirming that state-law rulings are not federal habeas claims unless constitutional rights implicated)
Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (U.S. 2011) (application of Strickland with AEDPA deference is doubly deferential)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes two-prong test for ineffective assistance claims)
Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (U.S. 1991) (limits federal review of state-law questions in habeas corpus)
O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (U.S. 1999) (requires exhaustion of state remedies before federal review)