Marvin J. Benson v. Shelby Smith, Warden of Belmont Correctional Institution

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio reviews objections to Reports and Recommendations concerning Marvin J. Benson’s federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court rejects Benson’s ineffective-assistance claim, concludes that his remaining claims are procedurally defaulted, and holds that the magistrate judge properly exercised jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The court adopts the Reports and Recommendations, dismisses the amended petition with prejudice, denies a certificate of appealability, and certifies that an appeal would be objectively frivolous.

Holdings

1. A magistrate judge may handle non-dispositive matters and issue reports and recommendations on dispositive matters in a non-capital § 2254 case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and the district court's referral order without the petitioner's consent.
2. In reviewing a state-court adjudication under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), the federal court is generally limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim, absent an applicable exception such as an actual-innocence gateway claim.
3. Benson failed to show that the Ohio appellate court unreasonably applied Strickland v. Washington or unreasonably determined the facts when it rejected his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek suppression of his statements after an allegedly unlawful arrest.
4. Benson's remaining claims were procedurally defaulted because Ohio's res judicata rule barred claims that could have been raised on direct appeal, the state courts enforced that rule, and Benson failed to establish cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice.
5. There is no constitutional right to be co-indicted or jointly tried with another person charged separately in connection with the same offense.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the magistrate judge had authority under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and the district court's local referral order to issue reports and recommendations without Benson's consent.
2. Whether the federal habeas court could consider evidence outside the state-court record in reviewing Benson's § 2254 claims.
3. Whether the Ohio appellate court unreasonably applied Strickland v. Washington or unreasonably determined the facts in rejecting Benson's ineffective-assistance claim based on counsel's failure to seek suppression of his police statements.
4. Whether Benson's remaining habeas claims were procedurally defaulted under Ohio's res judicata rule.
5. Whether Benson had a constitutional right to be co-indicted or tried jointly with the separately charged co-defendant.

Disposition

dismissed