# Opinion

> District Court, S.D. Ohio · November 17, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11207346

## Case

- **Full name:** Keontae Nelson v. Bill Cool, Warden, Ross Correctional Institution
- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Ohio
- **Decided:** November 17, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11207346

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

KEONTAE NELSON,

Petitioner,
:

v.
Case No. 2:24-cv-4301

Chief Judge Sarah D. Morrison

Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz
BILL COOL, WARDEN,

ROSS CORRECTIONAL
:
INSTITUTION,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER
This is an action for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, brought
by Petitioner Keontae Nelson with the assistance of counsel. The Magistrate Judge
has filed a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Petition be
dismissed with prejudice and that Petitioner be denied a certificate of appealability.
(R&R, ECF No. 19.) Petitioner has objected (Objs., ECF No. 20) and Respondent’s
time for responding to those Objections has expired.
If a party objects within the allotted time to a report and recommendation,
the Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Upon review, the Court “may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made
by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, Petitioner’s Objections,
and those portions of the record implicated therein, de novo, and finds no error in
the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions or reasoning.

I. GROUND ONE: INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CONVICT
In his first ground for relief, Petitioner claims he was convicted on
constitutionally insufficient evidence. As set forth in the R&R, the governing
standard for a claim of insufficient evidence is found in Jackson v. Virginia, 443
U.S. 307 (1979). Petitioner agrees. Yet he misstates the standard of review as “not
whether an inference is available in the abstract, but whether every rational juror,
on this record, could find the specific mental element beyond a reasonable doubt.”

(Objs., PAGEID# 2004 (emphasis added).) The standard, rather, is whether any
rational juror could make that finding. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319. Under the correct
standard, the answer is undoubtedly yes.
The Objections also ignore the Court’s required double deference—first to the
jury that made the inference and then to the appellate court that affirmed that
finding. Brown v. Konteh, 567 F.3d 191, 205 (6th Cir. 2009). When reviewing a

claim for sufficient evidence, a federal habeas court must apply a twice-deferential
standard. Parker v. Matthews, 567 U.S. 37, 43 (2012) (per curiam). In a sufficiency
of the evidence habeas corpus case, deference should be given to the trier-of-fact's
verdict under Jackson and then to the appellate court's consideration of that
verdict, as commanded by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.
Tucker v. Palmer, 541 F.3d 652 (6th Cir. 2008); accord Davis v. Lafler, 658 F.3d 525,
531 (6th Cir. 2011) (en banc); Parker v. Matthews, 567 U.S. 37, 43 (2012).
The Objections assert that Petitioner should be granted a certificate of
appealability because reasonable jurists could debate the appellate court’s

resolution of the Jackson issue. Not only does the Court disagree, but that assertion
is based on speculation. The appellate decision was unanimous, and the Petitioner
does not present a single case in which there has been debate among reasonable
jurists on similar facts.
Petitioner’s objections to the R&R’s treatment of Ground One is
OVERRULED.
II. GROUND TWO: CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT

In his second ground for relief, Petitioner asserts that his sentence to life
imprisonment without the possibility of parole amounts to cruel and unusual
punishment in violation of the Ohio Constitution and the Eighth Amendment to the
United States Constitution considering his age (20-years-old) and amenability to
rehabilitation. The Court disagrees.
Petitioner presented both claims as a combined assignment of error on direct

appeal which the Fourth Appellate District rejected. The R&R noted that this Court
cannot review the decision on the Ohio Constitution. Petitioner does not contest
that conclusion. He also requested an evidentiary hearing to present evidence on
this claim. The R&R found an evidentiary hearing barred by Cullen v. Pinholster,
563 U.S. 170 (2011), and Petitioner likewise does not object to that conclusion.
As to his Eighth Amendment claim, the R&R found that Petitioner needed to
show that the Fourth Appellate District’s decision was “an objectively unreasonable
application of relevant Supreme Court precedent.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). But he
has failed to do so. Petitioner has not cited to any Supreme Court precedent that

requires “individualized consideration of psychological evidence before imposing a
sentence of life without parole on a twenty-year-old murderer.” (R&R, PAGEID#
2000.)
Petitioner disagrees. Instead, he asserts:
the claim rests on the general proportionality framework that the
Supreme Court has long articulated (and repeatedly applied in youth-
related contexts): sentences must not be “grossly disproportionate” and
youth bears on culpability and penological justifications. The state
court’s analysis treated adult vs. juvenile as rather dispositive and did
not meaningfully engage comparative proportionality or the mitigating
force of near-youth in imposing an irreducible life term.

(Objs., PAGEID# 2005–06). But to prevail in habeas corpus on an issue decided on
the merits by a state court, a petitioner must show that the state court’s decision
“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[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 100
(2011). Again, Petitioner’s failure to cite any precedent for his position is dispositive
here.
It is “clearly established” that the “gross disproportionality principle is
applicable to sentences for terms of years.” Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 72
(2003). In Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 59–60 (2010), the Court explained the
gross disproportionality principle:
The Court's cases addressing the proportionality of sentences fall within
two general classifications. The first involves challenges to the length of
term-of-years sentences given all the circumstances in a particular case.
The second comprises cases in which the Court implements the
proportionality standard by certain categorical restrictions on the death
penalty.

In the first classification the Court considers all of the circumstances of
the case to determine whether the sentence is unconstitutionally
excessive. Under this approach, the Court has held unconstitutional a
life without parole sentence for the defendant's seventh nonviolent
felony, the crime of passing a worthless check. Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S.
277, 103 S. Ct. 3001, 77 L. Ed. 2d 637 (1983). In other cases, however, it
has been difficult for the challenger to establish a lack of proportionality.
A leading case is Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 111 S. Ct. 2680,
115 L. Ed. 2d 836 (1991), in which the offender was sentenced under
state law to life without parole for possessing a large quantity of cocaine.
A closely divided Court upheld the sentence. The controlling opinion
concluded that the Eighth Amendment contains a “narrow
proportionality principle,” that “does not require strict proportionality
between crime and sentence” but rather “forbids only extreme sentences
that are 'grossly disproportionate' to the crime.” Id., at 997, 1000-1001,
111 S. Ct. 2680, 115 L. Ed. 2d 836 (Kennedy J., concurring in part and
concurring in judgment). Again closely divided, the Court rejected a
challenge to a sentence of 25 years to life for the theft of a few golf clubs
under California's so-called three-strikes recidivist sentencing scheme.
Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 123 S. Ct. 1179, 155 L. Ed. 2d 108
(2003); see also Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 123 S. Ct. 1166, 155 L.
Ed. 2d 144 (2003). The Court has also upheld a sentence of life with the
possibility of parole for a defendant's third nonviolent felony, the crime
of obtaining money by false pretenses, Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263,
100 S. Ct. 1133, 63 L. Ed. 2d 382 (1980), and a sentence of forty years
for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and distribution of
marijuana, Hutto v. Davis, 454 U.S. 370, 102 S. Ct. 703, 70 L. Ed. 2d 556
(1982) (per curiam).

The controlling opinion in Harmelin explained its approach for
determining whether a sentence for a term of years is grossly
disproportionate for a particular defendant's crime. A court must begin
by comparing the gravity of the offense and the severity of the sentence.
501 U.S., at 1005, 111 S. Ct. 2680, 115 L. Ed. 2d 836 (opinion of Kennedy
J.). “[I]n the rare case in which [this] threshold comparison . . . leads to
an inference of gross disproportionality” the court should then compare
the defendant's sentence with the sentences received by other offenders
in the same jurisdiction and with the sentences imposed for the same
crime in other jurisdictions. Ibid. If this comparative analysis
“validate[s] an initial judgment that [the] sentence is grossly
disproportionate,” the sentence is cruel and unusual. Ibid.

Graham, 560 U.S. at 59–60.
While youth—understood as a legal minor—has been dispositive with respect
to imposing the death penalty, the Supreme Court has never suggested that being
“near youth” is a required consideration. Because the Supreme Court has not yet
held that this must be taken into consideration, the Court declines to do so here.
Petitioner further asserts that the state courts did not consider his amenability to
rehabilitation. Again, no decision of the Supreme Court requires this factor to be
considered, much less establishes any standard for proving such amenability.
Petitioner again requests a certificate of appealability because reasonable
jurists “could debate the Eighth Amendment analysis.” (Objs., PAGEID# 2007.)
Because Petitioner has provided no support for his position, the Court disagrees.
Petitioner’s objections to the R&R’s treatment of Ground Two is
OVERRULED.
III. GROUND THREE: UNCONSTITUTIONAL ADMISSION OF
CONSPIRACY-RELATED EVIDENCE
In his third ground for relief, Petitioner asserts the admission of
conspiracy-related evidence at trial was unconstitutional because the Fourth
Appellate District dismissed the conspiracy charge on appeal. The R&R
recommended this claim be dismissed because it could have been raised on direct
appeal but was not. The Court agrees.
Petitioner objects that the Fourth Appellate District made an alternative
merits decision on this question when it denied his claim of ineffective assistance of
appellate counsel in his Application for Reopening under Ohio App. R. 26(B). But
that does not address the procedural default on direct appeal on which the R&R

relied. Petitioner does not deny that the evidence he argues should have been
excluded was in the record on direct appeal. Nor does he deny that he could have
raised this claim on direct appeal. Nor does he contest that Ohio law bars by res
judicata later consideration of any claim which could have been raised on direct
appeal but was not. State v. Perry, 226 N.E.2d 104 (Ohio 1967). Indeed, the Sixth
Circuit has repeatedly held the Perry rule to be an adequate and independent
procedural rule. See, e.g., Durr v. Mitchell, 487 F.3d 423, 432 (6th Cir. 2007).

Petitioner cites to his having raised this claim as an omitted assignment of
error when he filed his 26(B) appeal. But asserting it was ineffective assistance of
appellate counsel to omit a particular assignment of error is not an excuse for not
presenting the error in the first place. An Ohio App. Rule 26(B) application
preserves for habeas review only the ineffective assistance of appellate counsel
argument, not underlying substantive arguments. Wogenstahl v. Mitchell, 668 F.3d

307, 338 (6th Cir. 2012) (“permitting an Ohio prisoner to raise a substantive claim
in a Rule 26(B) motion ‘would eviscerate the continued vitality of the procedural
default rule; every procedural default could be avoided, and federal court merits
review guaranteed, by claims that every act giving rise to every procedural default
was the result of constitutionally ineffective counsel.’”) (citing Lott v. Coyle, 261
F.3d 594, 612 (6th Cir. 2001)). Of course, if the Fourth Appellate District had found
it was ineffective assistance of appellate counsel to omit this claim and had
reopened the appeal, this claim would have been resurrected. But that did not
happen.

Petitioner’s objections to the R&R’s treatment of Ground Three is
OVERRULED.
IV. EVIDENTIARY DEVELOPMENT
In a fourth objection, Petitioner asserts the Magistrate Judge’s reading of
Cullen v. Pinholster as barring evidentiary development in this case is at least
debatable. The Court disagrees.
According to the Petitioner, “reasonable jurists could debate … whether the

Eighth Amendment claim’s disposition here—resting on a truncated proportionality
analysis with no mitigation record—permits any development to determine whether
the state court unreasonably applied the general standard.” (Objs., PAGEID# 2008).
But Pinholster “bars a federal court ‘from admitting new evidence upon which to
assess the reasonableness of a state court's constitutional analysis.’” Upshaw v.
Stephenson, 97 F. 4th 365, 372 (6th Cir. 2024) (quoting Mitchell v. Genovese, 974
F.3d 638, 647 (6th Cir. 2020)). Petitioner has not suggested what additional

evidence he would submit or cited any authority to suggest that Pinholster would
not apply to that evidence.
Apart from Pinholster, Petitioner asserts that reasonable jurists could debate
“whether, at the COA stage, the legal question of proportionality and the absence of
individualized youth-based mitigation warrant appellate review regardless of
evidentiary expansion.” (Objs., PAGEID# 2008.) Yet again, he cites no authority to
suggest that reasonable jurists have debated such an issue on similar facts.
Petitioner’s fourth objection is OVERRULED.
V. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

The requirement for a certificate of appealability in habeas corpus cases was
enacted by Congress as part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of
1996 (Pub. L. No 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214) (the “AEDPA”). As enacted, 28 U.S.C.
§2253(c)(1) required a certificate of appealability to be issued by a “circuit justice or
judge” and required a finding that the petitioner had “made a substantial showing
of the denial of a constitutional right.” The circuit courts quickly devolved initial
consideration of such certificates to the district courts. Lyons v. Ohio Adult Parole

Auth., 105 F.3d 1063 (6th Cir. 1997); Kincade v. Sparkman, 117 F.3d 949 (6th Cir.
1997) (adopting analysis in Lozada v. United States, 107 F.3d 1011, 1017 (2d Cir.
1997)). The United States Supreme Court endorsed that devolution of authority by
adopting Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in 2009.
The Supreme Court has adopted a standard to apply to the decision on
whether to issue or deny a certificate. When a district court has rejected a

constitutional claim on the merits, a movant must show that jurists of reason would
find the district court’s assessment of the claim to be debatable or wrong. Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). “A petitioner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s
resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues
presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003).
As addressed above, Petitioner has provided no authority, for any of his objections,
to suggest that reasonable jurists would disagree with the Court’s conclusions. As

such, Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
VI. CONCLUSION
Having considered the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation de
novo in light of Petitioner’s Objections, the Court ADOPTS the Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 19) and OVERRULES Petitioner’s Objections (ECF No.
20). The Clerk will enter judgment dismissing with prejudice the Petition. Because
reasonable jurists would not disagree with this conclusion, Petitioner is DENIED a

certificate of appealability, and the Court certifies to the Sixth Circuit that any
appeal would be objectively frivolous and should not be permitted to proceed in
forma pauperis.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Sarah D. Morrison
SARAH D. MORRISON, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11207346. Public record. Not legal advice.