William McGee v. Warden, Belmont Correctional Institution

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio overruled William McGee’s objections to a magistrate judge’s substituted report and recommendations in his federal habeas corpus case. The court held that his Fourth Amendment claims were barred under Stone v. Powell, that several ineffective-assistance claims were procedurally defaulted, and that his remaining claims did not warrant habeas relief. The court dismissed the petition with prejudice, denied a certificate of appealability, and certified that any appeal would be objectively frivolous.

Holdings

1. Federal habeas review of McGee's Fourth Amendment claims was barred because Ohio provided him a full and fair opportunity to litigate those claims in state court.
2. McGee's ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim was procedurally defaulted because Ohio law required claims dependent on evidence outside the direct-appeal record to be presented in a post-conviction petition, and the time for filing such a petition had expired.
3. McGee was not entitled to habeas relief because he failed to present the claim as a federal constitutional claim in the Ohio courts.
4. The manifest-weight claim was not cognizable on federal habeas review, and the insufficiency-of-the-evidence claim failed because the state court's decision was entitled to deference and the evidence was sufficient to show that McGee knowingly fired into a habitation.
5. McGee's ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claims were procedurally defaulted because the Ohio Tenth District found his Rule 26(B) application untimely for lack of good cause, and he also failed to appeal that decision to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Questions Presented

1. Whether McGee's Fourth Amendment suppression claims were reviewable in federal habeas despite the state courts' denial of suppression.
2. Whether McGee's ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim based on alibi evidence was procedurally defaulted because the supporting evidence was outside the direct-appeal record and was not presented in a timely Ohio post-conviction petition.
3. Whether McGee's claim concerning admission of his prior drug-conspiracy conviction stated a federal constitutional claim cognizable in habeas.
4. Whether McGee's manifest-weight and insufficient-evidence claims warranted federal habeas relief.
5. Whether McGee's ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claims were procedurally defaulted because his Ohio Rule 26(B) application was untimely and he did not appeal the state court's decision to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Disposition

dismissed