Summary
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio reviews petitioner D’Marques Jones’s objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation concerning his federal habeas petition. The court overrules the objections, adopts the report and recommendation, and concludes that Jones’s claims concerning Ohio’s Serious Youthful Offender sentencing scheme, post-conviction jurisdiction, and ineffective assistance of counsel do not warrant habeas relief.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court properly reviewed and adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation after Jones filed objections.
- Whether Jones’s challenge to the venue or jurisdiction of Ohio post-conviction proceedings presented a cognizable federal habeas claim.
- Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to cross-examine the State’s witnesses regarding the J-SOAP-II assessment.
- Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to retain, consult, or present a mental-health expert concerning the J-SOAP-II assessment.
- Whether Jones was entitled to a certificate of appealability.
Holdings
- An objection that merely expresses disagreement with the magistrate judge’s reasoning or repeats arguments previously presented is not a proper objection requiring further review; the district court may overrule such objections and adopt the recommendation.
- The court did not need to decide whether Ohio’s post-conviction procedures were constitutionally inadequate because Jones’s ineffective-assistance claims failed on the merits regardless of the proper state-court venue for his post-conviction petition.
- Jones failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel because he could not show prejudice from counsel’s failure to cross-examine the State’s witnesses about the J-SOAP-II assessment.
- Jones failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s failure to retain, consult, or present a mental-health expert concerning the J-SOAP-II assessment because he could not demonstrate prejudice.
- Jones was not entitled to a certificate of appealability because he failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and reasonable jurists could not disagree with the disposition.
Key quotations
“The Court does not find that “reasonable jurists could disagree regarding the disposition of this case” because he has not made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right.”
“Because Jones cannot demonstrate prejudice on either of these claims, he cannot establish ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland.”
Factual background
After being convicted of rape and felony murder in the Summit County Juvenile Court, Jones was designated a serious youthful offender and received a juvenile disposition together with a stayed adult sentence of life imprisonment with parole eligibility after twenty-five years. The juvenile court invoked the adult sentence in 2016 after finding that Jones had failed to complete sex-offender treatment, had not been rehabilitated, and posed a substantial risk to community safety. Jones contended in federal habeas proceedings that counsel at the invocation hearing was ineffective for failing to challenge the State’s use of the J-SOAP-II assessment and for failing to retain or consult a mental-health expert.
Procedural history
Following his 2012 juvenile-court convictions for rape and felony murder, Jones received a serious-youthful-offender sentence consisting of a juvenile disposition and a stayed adult life sentence. The juvenile court later invoked the adult sentence after finding that Jones had not been rehabilitated and had failed to complete required sex-offender treatment; the Ohio appellate court affirmed. Jones pursued state post-conviction relief, but the Ohio appellate court ultimately held that the juvenile court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the petition, and the Ohio Supreme Court declined review. Jones then filed this § 2254 petition. Magistrate Judge Henderson recommended dismissal or denial, and the district court adopted that recommendation after de novo review.