Terrell Martin v. Warden, David W. Gray

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio considered Terrell Martin’s objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. The court rejected his speedy-trial and ineffective-assistance claims, overruled the objections, adopted the Report and Recommendation, dismissed the petition on the merits, and declined to issue a certificate of appealability.

Holdings

1. The district court must conduct de novo review of portions of a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation to which a proper objection is made, while a general objection has the same effect as a failure to object.
2. Martin failed to establish a constitutional speedy-trial violation, and the state appellate court's rejection of that claim was not an unreasonable application of federal law.
3. Martin procedurally defaulted his constitutional challenge to Ohio Revised Code § 2945.71(E) by failing to raise it in the state trial court, and he did not show cause, prejudice, or actual innocence to excuse the default.
4. Martin failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's alleged failure to respond to discovery requests or object to the trial court's failure to record all proceedings.
5. Martin 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 the state courts' rejection of Martin's Sixth Amendment speedy-trial claim was contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law.
2. Whether Martin procedurally defaulted his constitutional challenge to Ohio Revised Code § 2945.71(E).
3. Whether the alleged failure of counsel to respond to discovery requests or object to unrecorded proceedings constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.
4. Whether Martin was entitled to a certificate of appealability.

Disposition

dismissed