Thomas DiBiase v. LaShann Eppinger
659 F. App'x 261
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- DiBiase was charged with multiple burglaries and related offenses in Ohio based on circumstantial evidence including cell records and recovered property.
- The jury convicted DiBiase of three burglaries and related counts, acquitting him on Ritchey burglary but sustaining Stewart and Ivancic burglaries and related counts.
- Evidence tied DiBiase to burglaries via physical items recovered at his home, a silver Buick, and testimony of others; cell-tower data placed DiBiase in proximity during the crimes.
- Investigations linked DiBiase to McNaughton, who committed burglaries, fenced stolen goods, and used DiBiase as a driver or logistic support in several instances.
- The district court denied habeas relief; the Sixth Circuit addressed whether the Ohio Court of Appeals reasonably applied the Jackson v. Virginia standard under AEDPA.
- The court ultimately held that the state appellate court’s sufficiency determination was not unreasonable and affirmed denial of habeas relief on the burglary convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Stewart burglary conviction is supported by sufficient evidence | DiBiase argues insufficiency of evidence | State maintains sufficient circumstantial evidence | Not entitled to relief; evidence viewed in prosecution’s favor supported accomplice role under Jackson v. Virginia |
| Whether the Ivancic burglary conviction is supported by sufficient evidence | Insufficient evidence linking DiBiase to Ivancic | Evidence shows DiBiase aided McNaughton; pattern of calls and property support | Not entitled to relief; sufficient evidence under Jackson v. Virginia |
| Whether the firearm specification convict is valid given lack of knowledge about weapon | DiBiase argues lack of mens rea for firearm spec. | Firearm specification imposes strict liability; complicit offense suffices | Valid; firearm specification imposes no mens rea requirement for complicity |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. (1979)) (standard for sufficiency of evidence (reasonable doubt))
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (U.S. (2011)) (AEDPA deference and the 'unreasonable application' standard)
- Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766 (U.S. (2010)) (highly deferential standard for state-court rulings)
- Stewart v. Wolfenbarger, 595 F.3d 647 (6th Cir. (2010)) (two-step approach for AEDPA sufficiency review)