GAGE L. SMITH v. STEPHEN REYNOLD, WARDEN, Grafton Correctional Institution
Case No. 2:24-cv-2368
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION AT COLUMBUS
April 14, 2025
District Judge Algenon L. Marbley; Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz
PAGEID #: 341
This habeas corpus case under
As required by
Ground One: Void Guilty Plea: Maximum Fine Misstated
In his first Ground for Relief, Smith asserts his plea of guilty was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because the trial court orally misstated the maximum fine amount. He
Petitioner objects as if Ground One had been an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim; he claims his attorney, as opposed to the trial judge, provided him with misinformation that “coerced” him into pleading guilty (ECF No. 16, PageID 321). But he points to no place in the record where he has revealed what this misinformation from his lawyer was. It was not in the record on appeal, so the Fifth District could not have considered it. He never filed a petition for post-conviction relief under
Petitioner‘s Objections on Ground One are without merit and are hereby OVERRULED.
Ground Two: Improper Sentence
In his Second Ground for Relief Petitioner “asserts that the factors used by the trial court in determining Petitioner Smith‘s sentence was [sic] in error and should not have been used by the trial court against the Petitioner Smith in the determination of Petitioner Smith‘s length of sentence pursuant to
The Amended Report analyzed this claim as arising solely under Ohio sentencing law and therefore not cognizable in habeas corpus (Amended Report, ECF No. 15, PageID 307-09).
Petitioner objects by incorporating all the objections he made as to Ground One and faulting the trial judge for not crediting his claims of remorse. None of this argument shows that the issue is one of federal constitutional law. Petitioner repeatedly says this is a due process issue, but cites no Supreme Court authority for a habeas court to overturn a state court sentence just because a petitioner believes he is remorseful and should have been sentenced to less time.
Petitioner‘s Objections on Ground Two are OVERRULED.
Ground Three: Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel
In his Third Ground for Relief, Petitioner claims he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel when his appellate attorney did not raise as an assignment of error the ineffective assistance of his trial counsel for failing to force the State to meet its burden of proving the victim was disabled and/or a member of a protected class.
The Amended Report noted that Petitioner had raised this claim in his Application to Reopen his Direct Appeal and that the Fifth District Court of Appeals had found no merit to the claim (ECF No. 15, PageID 311). The Magistrate Judge concluded this was a reasonable application of the governing standard for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel found in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Id.
In his Objections, Petitioner fails to show any way in which the Fifth District‘s decision is an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. He merely recites general phrases about fairness and due process without connecting them in any way with his particular case.
Petitioner‘s Objections on Ground Three are OVERRULED.
Ground Four: Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel: Failure to Claim Abuse of Discretion in Trial Court Restitution Setting
In his Fourth Ground for Relief, Petitioner claims he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel when his appellate attorney did not plead as an assignment of error the trial court‘s prejudicial inflation of the restitution amount. The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of this claim because the amount of restitution imposed had been agreed upon by Petitioner (Amended Report, ECF No. 15, PageID 312-13).
Petitioner objects:
The trial court was highly unfair, improper, and prejudicial in calculation Petitioner Smith‘s restitution amount in this instant case. The trial court erred in setting the restitution amount violating not only state law but also Petitioner Smith‘s constitutional and due process rights under the United States Constitution.
(Objections, ECF No. 16, PageID 334). Thus the Objections are in no way even remotely responsive to the Amended Report‘s finding that the amount of restitution imposed was precisely to the penny – the amount Petitioner had agreed to. Petitioner‘s Objections on Ground Four are OVERRULED1.
Ground Five: Ineffective Assistance Of Appellate Counsel: Failure To Assign Lack of Advocacy As Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel
In his Fifth Ground for Relief, Petitioner asserts appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to assign as error a wide number of omissions by trial counsel. The Magistrate Judge found Petitioner gave no details, but asserted generally that trial counsel did not fully investigate the case, interview potential witnesses, or obtain evidence. The Amended Report concluded the Fifth District‘s dismissal of this claim on the basis of lack of a factual basis
Petitioner‘s Objections consist of broad generalizations about due process and fail to point to any facts in the appellate record on which appellate counsel could have based a tenable claim. Petitioner‘s Objections on Ground Five are OVERRULED.
Conclusion
The Court having overruled all of Petitioner‘s Objections, the Magistrate Judge‘s Amended Report is ADOPTED. The Clerk shall enter judgment dismissing the Petition with prejudice. Because reasonable jurists would not disagree with this conclusion, Petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability and the Court certifies to the Sixth Circuit that any appeal would be objectively frivolous and should not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis.
IT SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 14, 2025
ALGENON L. MARBLEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE