Michael L. Larr v. Misty Mackey, Warden

Summary

This Report and Recommendations addresses Michael Larr’s federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his Ohio convictions for gross sexual imposition. The court analyzes claims concerning insufficient evidence, hearsay, the Confrontation Clause, due process, and arrest without probable cause, distinguishing federal constitutional claims from nonreviewable state-law and manifest-weight claims. The excerpt concludes that the state court’s resolution of the sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim is entitled to AEDPA deference.

Holdings

1. A federal habeas court may not grant relief merely because a state court allegedly violated state evidentiary law or abused its discretion; habeas relief is limited to violations of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
2. A claim that a state conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence is not a federal constitutional claim reviewable in a § 2254 proceeding.
3. The state appellate court’s determination that sufficient evidence supported Larr’s convictions was entitled to AEDPA deference, and the federal sufficiency claim should be dismissed with prejudice.
4. Larr’s challenge to the probable cause for his pretrial arrest did not provide a basis for federal habeas relief because the petition challenged custody under the post-conviction commitment order, not a current detention warrant, and no cognizable Fourth Amendment trial-evidence issue was shown.
5. Confrontation Clause claims that Larr failed to preserve by contemporaneous objection, and that the state appellate court declined to review absent a plain-error claim, were procedurally defaulted in federal habeas proceedings.
6. The state appellate court’s conclusion that the child’s statements to the child-advocacy-center interviewer were made for medical diagnosis or treatment, were nontestimonial, and did not violate the Confrontation Clause was not shown to be contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence was constitutionally insufficient to support Larr’s convictions under Jackson v. Virginia.
2. Whether Larr’s alleged arrest without probable cause provided a basis for federal habeas relief.
3. Whether admission of the child’s out-of-court statements and forensic interview violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.
4. Whether the Confrontation Clause claims not preserved by contemporaneous objection were procedurally defaulted.
5. Whether Larr’s manifest-weight-of-the-evidence claim was cognizable in federal habeas corpus.

Disposition

other