“[A] petitioner may procedurally default a claim Brown further presents no arguments showing cause or prejudice in regard to his failure to bring the due process claim in the Ohio appellate court. And while Brown did file a 26(B
How later courts described this case
- “[A] petitioner may procedurally default a claim Brown further presents no arguments showing cause or prejudice in regard to his failure to bring the due process claim in the Ohio appellate court. And while Brown did file a 26(B
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
:
STANLEY D. BROWN, JR., : CASE NO. 1:18-cv-02925
:
Petitioner, : OPINION & ORDER
: [Resolving Doc. 1]
v. :
:
WARDEN CHAE HARRIS, :
:
Respondent. :
:
:
JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE:
Petitioner Stanley D. Brown, Jr. serves a 7-year sentence for aiding and abetting rape.1
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Brown—through counsel—filed a habeas corpus petition.2 After a
referral,3 Magistrate Judge Greenberg filed a Report and Recommendation. Judge Greenberg
recommended this Court deny Brown’s petition.4 Petitioner objects to most of the Report
and Recommendation.5 Warden Harris responds.6 This Court reviews the objected-to
portions .7
For the following reasons, the Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections, ADOPTS
the reasoning of the Report and Recommendation in part and the conclusions in full, and
DENIES Brown’s habeas corpus petition.
1 Doc. 10-1 at 20.
2 Doc. 1. Brown later filed an addendum to his petition for habeas corpus. Doc. 3.
3 Local Rule 72.2.
4 Doc. 17.
5 Doc. 22.
6 Doc. 23.
I. Background
An Ohio jury found Petitioner Brown guilty of aiding and abetting a rape that occurred
in a Mansfield, Ohio motel. Brown then unsuccessfully challenged his conviction in a state
direct appeal and in state collateral post-conviction actions.8
Now, Brown challenges his conviction in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He
raises two main arguments. First, in Grounds One and Two, Brown says that the trial court’s
exclusion of evidence about the victim’s prior conduct violated his constitutional due process
and Sixth Amendment rights. Second, Brown says he was denied due process as there was
insufficient evidence for the jury to convict him. 9
The Court addresses these habeas claims below.
II. Legal Standard
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”)10 controls
federal courts’ review of a state prisoner habeas corpus petition. Under AEDPA, federal
courts consider only federal Constitutional or federal law claims.11 Federal habeas courts do
not review state law decisions.
Further, AEDPA prohibits federal courts from granting a habeas petition for any state
court constitutional ruling unless the state court’s decision:
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable
application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme
Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based upon
an unreasonable determination of facts in light of the evidence presented in
the State court proceeding.12
8 Doc. 17 at 6–8.
9 Doc. 15 at 10–16. Petitioner “explicitly waived” other grounds raised in his initial petition. at 15 n.3.
10 Pub. L. No. 104–132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996).
11 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).
Before reviewing a habeas petition claim on the merits, federal courts generally
consider whether the claim was procedurally defaulted in the state courts. If the state court
enforced a state procedural rule and denied a claim for that reason, the claim is procedurally
defaulted.13
Most often, procedural default results when a habeas petitioner does not raise a claim
at each state court level.14 Under Ohio rules, if a petitioner “failed to raise a
claim on direct appeal, which could have been raised on direct appeal, the claim is
procedurally defaulted.”15
To overcome state procedural default, a habeas petitioner must show: (1) cause for
the default and actual prejudice resulting from the alleged federal law violation, or (2) that
there will be a fundamental miscarriage of justice if the court does not consider the claim.16
“Cause” is a legitimate excuse for the default, and “prejudice” is actual harm caused by the
alleged constitutional violation.17 If a petitioner fails to show cause for their procedural
default, a court need not consider prejudice.18 Finally, “a fundamental miscarriage of justice”
is the conviction of one who is “actually innocent.”19
III. Discussion
A. Grounds One and Two
At trial, after an Ohio rape shield law hearing to determine the admissibility of certain
evidence regarding the victim’s prior sexual activity, the judge ruled that “no evidence may
13 , 460 F.3d 789, 805–06 (6th Cir. 2006).
14 at 806 (citing , 456 U.S. 107, 125 n. 28 (1982)).
15
16 , 440 F.3d 754, 763 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing , 501 U.S. 722, 749–50
(1991)).
17 , No. 1:18-CV-1167, 2018 WL 3829101, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 13, 2018).
18 , 477 U.S. 527, 532 (1986).
be presented [at trial] of the victim having venereal disease” and “no evidence may be
presented of the victim being on a previous occasion at the hotel where the alleged incident
occurred.”20
On appeal to the Ohio Fifth Appellate District, Brown argued, in his first assignment
of error, that the exclusion of this evidence violated his Sixth Amendment rights.21 The
appellate court considered and rejected this claim.22
Next, in an Ohio Supreme Court review petition, Brown challenged the
constitutionality of excluding the evidence of the “victim’s attendance at prior parties” but
“did not contest [ . . . ] the ruling regarding venereal disease.”23 The Ohio Supreme Court
declined to accept jurisdiction.24
As the Court explains below, the Sixth Amendment claim as it pertains to the victim’s
prior party attendance is properly considered on habeas review but the rest of Grounds One
and Two are procedurally defaulted.
i. Procedural Default
Brown’s argument to this Court that the exclusion of evidence at trial violated his due
process rights is procedurally defaulted. Brown did not raise this argument to the Ohio Fifth
Appellate District court. Even if, as Brown contends, that he did present this argument to the
Ohio Supreme Court, he earlier defaulted it in his direct appeal.25
20 Doc. 10-1, Ex. 6.
21 at 77.
22 at 77–78.
23 at 95.
24 , Ex. 20.
25 , 460 F.3d 789, 806 (6th Cir. 2006) (“[A] petitioner may procedurally default a claim
Brown further presents no arguments showing cause or prejudice in regard to his
failure to bring the due process claim in the Ohio appellate court. And while Brown did file
a 26(B) motion alleging ineffective assistance of his intermediate appellate counsel, his 26(B)
motion does not argue that the appellate counsel was ineffective for not brining the due
process claim; it gave other reasons.26 Therefore, ineffective assistance of appellate counsel
cannot excuse the procedural default.
ii. Sixth Amendment Claim
Brown made the Sixth Amendment argument regarding the victim’s prior visits to
the motel to both the Ohio appellate court and the Ohio Supreme Court. Since Brown has
no further state remedies available and completed “one complete round of the State's
established appellate review process,”27 this Court reviews his Sixth Amendment claim
with the appropriate AEDPA deference.
As the Report and Recommendation thoroughly explains,28 in considering Brown’s
Sixth Amendment argument, the appellate court’s application of a balancing test was not
contrary to clearly established federal law. In fact, the state court decision was “consistent
with the requirement that state courts ensure the application of rules limiting cross-
examination not be arbitrarily applied or ‘disproportionate to the ends that ... [it is] asserted
to promote.’”29
26 Doc. 10-1, Ex. 22.
27 , 375 F.3d 430, 438 (6th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted).
28 Doc. 17 at 20–26.
29 , No. 1:17-CV-128, 2019 WL 6221477, at *22 (N.D. Ohio July 8, 2019), report and
Furthermore, even if an error had occurred, Brown cannot overcome the harmless
error standard.30
B. Ground Three
Brown argues that the state trial court violated his right to due process because, he
says, there was insufficient evidence of his guilt.31 He says that victim’s testimony at trial did
not identify him.32 In particular, he notes that at trial, the victim was asked: “Do you know
who pushed you?” The victim responded “No.”33
i. Procedural Default
Brown procedurally defaulted this claim on direct review. The Supreme Court has
determined that a failing to present a claim even on a discretionary appeal results in a
procedural default.34 Brown defaulted this sufficiency claim because he did not present the
claim to the Ohio Supreme Court. 35
ii. Cause and Prejudice
Brown argues that “his direct appellate counsel’s failure to raise the sufficiency issue
in the Ohio Supreme Court” provides cause.36 But since he had no constitutional right to
counsel at the Ohio Supreme Court, he cannot use an ineffective assistance of Ohio Supreme
Court counsel claim to save the claim.37 And the limited exception does
30 , 801 F.3d 652, 665 (6th Cir. 2015) (citations omitted) (“Confrontation Clause violation [must]
have a ‘substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict’ before it merits reversal on collateral
review.”).
31 Doc. 15 at 15-17.
32
33 at 15 (citing Doc. 11-1 at 229–34).34 , 526 U.S. 838, 848 (1999).
34 , 526 U.S. 838, 848 (1999).
35 Doc. 10-1, Ex. 18.
36 Doc. 22 at 18.
not apply where, on direct review, an on-the-record claim was raised to the intermediate
appellate court and then not raised to the state supreme court.38
Additionally, Brown’s reliance on the Sixth Circuit’s decision in
to excuse the default is not on point. That case only reaches ineffective
assistance of counsel claims “based in part on evidence outside the record,”40 which is
plainly not at issue here.
iii. Merits
Even if the procedural default could be excused, this claim is easily resolved on the
merits.41 On habeas review, the “[sufficiency] inquiry does not require a court to ‘ask itself
whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’
Instead, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements
of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”42
Here, the jury received evidence that Brown was present during the rape;43 Brown
was near the victim’s head and likely on the bed; 44 and immediately after the rape,45 Brown
attempted to force the victim into oral sex on Brown.46 The jury also received evidence that
Brown’s semen was on the victim’s clothing.47
In light of this evidence, Brown’s claim fails on the merits.
38 , No. 5:19-CV-01818, 2021 WL 4078298, at *4 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 8, 2021)
(discussing the framework).
39 940 F.3d 270 (6th Cir. 2019).
40 at 277.
41 , No. 1:18-CV-504, 2021 WL 1215793, at *18 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 31, 2021).
42 , 443 U.S. 307, 318–19 (1979).
43 Doc. 11-1 at 269.
44
45
46 at 269–70.
IV. Conclusion
For the following reasons, the Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections, ADOPTS
the reasoning of the Report and Recommendation in part and the conclusions in full, and
DENIES Brown’s habeas corpus petition. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of
appealability.48
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 1, 2021
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE