Edward A. Smith v. Leon Hill, Warden

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation in Edward A. Smith’s federal habeas action. The court dismissed the petition with prejudice, finding the first three grounds procedurally defaulted and the fourth ground non-cognizable, after Smith failed to object to the Report and Recommendation.

Holdings

1. The claim was procedurally defaulted because Smith did not fairly present it through Ohio's ordinary appellate review process and failed to establish cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice to excuse the default.
2. The claims were procedurally defaulted because Smith failed properly to raise and present them at each level of state-court review, including by failing timely to seek review in the Supreme Court of Ohio, and he failed to establish an excuse for the defaults.
3. The double-jeopardy claim was not cognizable in the federal habeas action because it challenged the state court's application of res judicata rather than presenting a cognizable violation of the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause.
4. A party's failure timely to object to a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, after being advised of the potential consequence, results in forfeiture of appellate review of the issues addressed in the recommendation, although forfeited issues may be considered in certain circumstances.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the petitioner's ineffective-assistance claim concerning trial counsel was procedurally defaulted.
2. Whether the petitioner's ineffective-assistance claims concerning the 2019 resentencing were procedurally defaulted.
3. Whether the petitioner's double-jeopardy claim was cognizable in federal habeas proceedings when based on the state court's application of res judicata.
4. Whether the district court should adopt the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation when the petitioner filed no objections.

Disposition

dismissed