Doyle v. McConahay

1

CARDELL DOYLE, Petitioner, v. WARDEN TIM MCCONAHAY, Respondent,

No. 1:21-CV-01838-PAB

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

April 3, 2024

PAMELA A. BARKER U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Jennifer Dowdell Armstrong U.S. Magistrate Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Cardell Doyle (“Mr. Doyle”), seeks a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) Mr. Doyle, an Ohio inmate, is currently serving a seven-year sentence at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility for aggravated robbery, grand theft, kidnapping, and improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle. He asserts four grounds for relief. Respondent Warden Tim McConahay^[1] (“Respondent”) filed a Return of Writ. (ECF No. 5.) Mr. Doyle filed a Traverse. (ECF No. 9.) This matter is before me by an automatic order of reference under Local Rule 72.2 for preparation of a report and recommendation of Mr. Doyle's petition and other case-dispositive motions. For the reasons set forth below, I RECOMMEND the Court DISMISS and/or DENY Mr. Doyle's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and not grant him a certificate of Appealability.

II. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND

For purposes of habeas corpus review of state court decisions, a state court's findings of fact are presumed correct and can be contravened only if the habeas petitioner shows, by clear and convincing evidence, that the state court's factual findings are erroneous. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); Moore v. Mitchell, 708 F.3d 760, 775 (6th Cir. 2013); Mitzel v. Tate, 267 F.3d 524, 530 (6th Cir. 2001). This presumption of correctness applies to factual findings made by a state court of appeals based on the state trial court record. Mitzel, 267 F.3d at 530. The Ohio Court of Appeals for the Eighth District summarized the facts as follows:

{¶3} The charges stemmed from a carjacking. Doyle and his codefendant robbed the victim at gunpoint during daylight hours, and the entire episode was recorded on a private surveillance camera. Doyle approached the victim with a handgun, which was later found by police in the glove compartment of the vehicle used in the commission of the crime, and demanded that the victim exit her car and give him the keys. Doyle and his codefendant, each driving one of the vehicles, fled the scene. The victim immediately provided the emergency dispatcher with a general description of the offenders, including their respective hairstyles and a general description of their vehicle. The stolen car was rented and had an anti-theft device installed. The rental company was able to track and disable the vehicle, allowing officers to locate the suspects within 30 minutes of the theft.

{¶4} When officers arrived to secure the stolen vehicle, Doyle and the codefendant, both of whom fit the victim's generic description, were seen exiting their vehicle, which was parked near the stolen one. Doyle exited from the front passenger seat. Doyle claims that the officers first saw him in the driveway where their vehicle was parked. Evidently, the testifying officer's notes did not contain any information about where Doyle was located when the officers arrived. The fact that Doyle was seen exiting the codefendant's vehicle, however, was otherwise recorded in the official report generated by another officer. The firearm used during the robbery was found in the glove compartment of the codefendant's vehicle, and forensic evidence placed Doyle in the front passenger seating area. As officers approached the suspects, Doyle fled into a nearby structure. Officers verified that Doyle did not exit the building, and then they obtained a search warrant to enter it. Doyle was found in a wall, hiding behind the insulation.

{¶5} Doyle's identity was the primary issue at trial. The victim's pretrial identification was less than certain and was predominantly based on the generic description provided to the emergency dispatcher. During her trial testimony, the victim was certain Doyle was the person who robbed her at gunpoint. She based her in-court identification on his facial features (his hairstyle had been changed from the day of the crime). The trial court, sitting as the trier of fact, did not rely on the victim's in-court identification. Instead, the trial court considered several other facts that demonstrated identity: (1) Doyle's flight and attempt to evade arrest; (2) Doyle and his codefendant's proximity to the stolen vehicle and that they matched the victim's generic description; (3) the fact that Doyle left forensic evidence in the front, passenger area of the codefendant's vehicle, where the victim saw him sitting before the robbery, and from which officers saw Doyle exit upon arriving at the scene; and (4) the fact that the weapon used in the robbery was found in the glove compartment of that same vehicle in a location consistent with Doyle's seating location.

State v. Doyle, 2019-Ohio-979, 133 N.E.3d 890, ¶¶3-5.

III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. State Court Conviction

On May 31, 2017, Mr. Doyle was indicted in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas on the following offenses: (1) aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. § 2911.01(A)(1) with a firearm specification; (2) grand theft in violation of R.C. § 2905.01(A)(1) with a firearm specification; (3) kidnapping in violation of R.C. § 2905.01(A)(2) with a firearm specification; and (4) improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle in violation of R.C. § 2923.16(B). (ECF No. 5-1, Exhibit 1.) Mr. Doyle pleaded not guilty on all charges. (ECF No. 5-1, Exhibit 2.)

The trial granted the state's oral motion to continue the trial due to a delay in receiving DNA results. (ECF No. 5-1, Exhibit 3.) On November 29, 2017, the state again moved to continue Mr. Doyle's trial because the comparison report for Mr. Doyle's buccal swab would not be available until after the scheduled trial date. (ECF No. 5-1, Exhibit 4.) The trial court granted this motion. (ECF No. 5-1, Exhibit 5.) Mr. Doyle's trial was continued three more times-once on motion by the state due to the victim being unavailable, and twice upon the trial court's own motion because the trial court was in trial on a different matter. (ECF No. 5-1, Exhibits 6-8.)

On February 22, 2018, Mr. Doyle's case proceeded to a bench trial. (ECF No. 5-1, Exhibit 9.) The trial court found Mr. Doyle guilty on all counts and the firearm specifications. (Id.) On March 1, 2018, the trial court held a sentencing hearing where it merged Mr. Doyle's counts of aggravated robbery, grand theft, and kidnapping as allied offense of similar import and the state elected to proceed on the count of aggravated robbery. (ECF No. 5-1, Exhibit 10.) The one-year firearm specification for Mr. Doyle's counts of aggravated robbery, grand theft, and kidnapping were merged with the three-year firearm specification for the count of aggravated robbery, and the three-year firearm specification on kidnapping was merged with the three-year firearm specification on aggravated robbery. (Id.)

The trial court then sentenced Mr. Doyle to a total sentence of 10 years. (Id.) This term included four years in prison for the count of aggravated robbery with an additional three years for the firearm specification; three years for the firearm specification on the count of grand theft, which was ordered to be served consecutively to the count of aggravated robbery; and 18 months for the count of improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle to be served concurrently. (Id.)

B. Direct Appeal

On March 30, 2018, Mr. Doyle, represented by counsel, filed a notice of appeal to the Eighth District Court of Appeals. (ECF No. 5-1, Exhibit 11.) In his merits brief, Mr. Doyle raised the following assignments of error:

(1) Appellant was denied a fair trial where an in-court identification was impermissibly suggestive.

(2) Appellant's convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence and the trial court erred by denying his motion for acquittal.

(3) The convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence.

(4) The trial court erred by considering evidence that was not properly authenticated.

(5) Appellant's federal and state constitutional rights to a speedy trial and due process were violated and his conviction should be vacated and dismissed.

(ECF No. 5-1, Exhibit 12.) The state filed a reply brief. (ECF No. 5-1, Exhibit 13.)

The Eighth District Court of Appeals sua sponte ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs regarding whether the rial court, after merging Mr. Doyle's grand theft count with his aggravated robbery count, had the authority to independently impose the three-year sentence for the firearm specification for the count of grand theft. (ECF No. 5-1, Exhibits 14-16.)

On March 21, 2019, the Eighth District Court of Appeals overruled all five of Mr. Doyle's assignments of error, but reversed and vacated the three-year sentence on the firearm specification attached to Mr. Doyle's grand theft count and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. (ECF No. 5-1, Exhibit 17); Doyle, 2019-Ohio-979. The trial court also remanded the case back to the trial court for the limited purpose of correcting the sentencing error to reflect Mr. Doyle's sentence to be four years imposed on his count of aggravated robbery and three years on the firearm specification attached to that count, to be served consecutively and prior to the base four-year sentence for aggravated robbery. (Id.)

C. Ohio Supreme Court

Two years later, on June 3, 2021, Mr. Doyle, pro se filed an untimely notice of appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court. (ECF No. 5-1, Exhibit 19.) In this motion, Mr. Doyle asserted that he had difficulties obtaining a copy of the Eighth District Court of Appeals decision to file his appeal in the Ohio...