Manuel Mendonca v. Warden, Madison Correctional Institution

Summary

This Report and Recommendation addresses Manuel Mendonca’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Magistrate Judge recommends denying the petition and dismissing the action, concluding that the Fourth Amendment claim was barred by Stone v. Powell because Mendonca had a full and fair opportunity to litigate it in state court, and that the sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim was procedurally defaulted and lacked merit. The Magistrate Judge also recommends declining to issue a certificate of appealability.

Holdings

1. The Fourth Amendment claim is not subject to federal habeas relief because Ohio provided Mendonca a full and fair opportunity to litigate the alleged unconstitutional search and seizure.
2. Mendonca’s sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim was procedurally defaulted because he raised it in the Ohio Court of Appeals but did not present it to the Supreme Court of Ohio, and he no longer could do so.
3. Even if the sufficiency claim were exhausted, the state appellate court reasonably determined that the evidence was sufficient to support Mendonca’s convictions.
4. To the extent Mendonca asserted a manifest-weight-of-the-evidence claim, that claim was not cognizable in federal habeas corpus.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the federal habeas court could review Mendonca’s Fourth Amendment challenge to the inventory search when Ohio courts provided him a full and fair opportunity to litigate the claim.
2. Whether Mendonca’s sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim was procedurally defaulted because he failed to present it to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
3. Whether, alternatively, the state appellate court’s determination that the evidence was sufficient under Jackson v. Virginia was unreasonable under AEDPA.
4. Whether a manifest-weight-of-the-evidence claim is cognizable in federal habeas corpus.

Disposition

other