Andre Lee v. Warden George Fredrick

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio overruled Andre Lee’s objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas action. The court adopted the Report and Recommendation, denied habeas relief, and dismissed Grounds One through Five as procedurally defaulted because Lee failed to establish ineffective assistance of appellate counsel as cause to excuse the defaults. The court also concluded that Lee’s ineffective-assistance claim lacked merit and denied a certificate of appealability.

Holdings

1. Grounds One, Three, and Five were procedurally defaulted because Lee did not object to the magistrate judge's conclusion that those claims had not been fairly presented in state court, and he therefore did not establish a basis for de novo review or excuse the default.
2. Lee's ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claim did not establish cause sufficient to excuse the procedural default of Grounds Two and Four because he failed to show a reasonable probability that the omitted claims would have succeeded.
3. Lee failed to show that trial counsel's failure to move to sever the drug-possession charges prejudiced him because the evidence was simple and direct, the jury could separate the offenses, and the limiting instructions were adequate.
4. Lee failed to show that the flight instruction was prejudicial error or that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain relief based on the instruction.
5. The Ohio appellate court's rejection of Lee's ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claim was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of federal law, and was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.
6. Lee was not entitled to a certificate of appealability because he failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Grounds One through Five of Lee's § 2254 petition were procedurally defaulted because the federal claims were not fairly presented to the Ohio courts.
2. Whether ineffective assistance of appellate counsel established cause and prejudice sufficient to excuse the procedural default of the claims concerning joinder and the flight instruction.
3. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek severance of the drug-possession charges.
4. Whether the flight instruction was unsupported or prejudicial and therefore supplied a meritorious claim that appellate counsel should have raised.
5. Whether the Ohio appellate court's rejection of Lee's ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claim was contrary to or an unreasonable application of Strickland or based on an unreasonable factual determination.
6. Whether Lee was entitled to a certificate of appealability.

Disposition

other