Jefferson v. Ohio

Tanelle Jefferson, Petitioner, v. State of Ohio, Respondent

Case No. 3:18cv779

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

April 27, 2020

JUDGE PAMELA A. BARKER

Magistrate Judge Kathleen Burke

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Petitioner Tanelle Jefferson, proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 concerning his state court conviction in the matter of State v. Jefferson, Lucas County Court of Common Pleas Case No. G4801-CR-0201601280. (Doc. Nos. 1, 22.) This matter is before the Court upon the Report & Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Kathleen Burke (Doc. No. 34), which recommends that the Petition be denied. Magistrate Judge Burke also recommends that Petitioner's Motions for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. No. 16), for Discovery (Doc. Nos. 17, 25), and to Expand the Record (Doc. Nos. 24, 31) be denied.

Petitioner has filed Objections to the R&R. (Doc. No. 35.) In addition, Petitioner has filed a Motion for Emergency Release due to the COVID-19 pandemic. (Doc. No. 36.)

For the following reasons, Petitioner's Objection (Doc. No. 35) is OVERRULED and the Magistrate Judge's Report & Recommendation (Doc. No. 34) is ACCEPTED as set forth herein. Petitioner's Motion for Emergency Release (Doc. No. 36) is DENIED.

I. Relevant Procedural History¹

The Court of Appeals for the Sixth District of Ohio (hereinafter "state appellate court") summarized the facts underlying Jefferson's state court conviction as follows:

{¶ 2} On February 12, 2016, appellant was indicted on one count of felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2) and (D), a felony of the second degree, and one count of having weapons while under disability in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(3), a felony of the third degree. Based upon the allegation that appellant committed the felonious assault while in possession of a firearm, a firearm specification was attached to the felonious assault under R.C. 2941.145.

{¶ 3} Thereafter, appellant entered pleas of not guilty to the aforementioned charges, and the matter proceeded to discovery. Following pretrial proceedings and motion practice, a two-day jury trial commenced on July 18, 2016.

{¶ 4} At trial, the state first presented the testimony of appellant's wife, Jeanette Ervin. Ervin and appellant were married in December 2015. According to Ervin, the marriage "started out fun," but eventually became abusive. Specifically, Ervin stated: "Well, after being together for a while, I noticed some changes in [appellant]. He would always grab on my clothes, rough me up, and he had that temper about [himself] and I would have to fight him off." Due to the abuse that was existent within their marriage, appellant and Ervin resided separately.

{¶ 5} Three months into the marriage, Ervin decided that it was time to end her relationship with appellant. After Ervin informed appellant of her decision to end the marriage, appellant asked Ervin to come to his house so that they could talk about possibly staying together. Ervin noticed that appellant was drinking from a bottle of Hennessy brandy when she arrived at his house. During the discussion, Ervin also noticed a handgun sitting on a nearby table.

{¶ 6} When Ervin informed appellant that she was leaving him, he told her that she was not going anywhere. Ervin then attempted to exit appellant's home. At trial, Ervin recounted the ensuing incident as follows:

And as I'm trying to get out the door, the front door, he's blocking me. So I break and run through the dining room to the kitchen to go down these steps to get away from him. And he put his foot on the back door and said, you're not going anywhere.

All of a sudden he [started] screaming and hollering and I'm just begging him, please. I called him Tee Jay. Tee Jay, let me go. I want to go home, leave me alone. I don't want to be here with you anymore. Let me go.

He kept saying, no, screaming and hollering, still got ahold of my clothes, to my clothes. I go back up the steps to the kitchen and the voice that came out of him was something like I've never heard before, like demons. He was just screaming and hollering at me.

And I knew at that point something bad is getting ready to happen because I already knew he had that gun.

So I tried to keep quiet and not say anything and I'm—he got me backed up there against this thing and I'm like Tee Jay, let me go; I want to go home.

So I managed—he kept telling me I wasn't going to go. I managed to get around him, go through the dining room. He's going to grab me again. Still got my clothes. By that time this weapon, this gun, hits the floor. I say, it's time for me to break and run for my life.

I ran out that door so fast. I was trembling. I was scared to death. I feared for my life.

As I'm running out the door going down the steps I hear a pow. I'm like, oh, my God, he done shot at me, am I shot? I run around to my car. I'm shaking. I'm trembling. I'm falling down to my knees. The [key is] dropping out of my hand. I'm trying to get in my car to get away and I look through my car window to see where he was at after he shot at me. He's standing on this porch like it's nothing. He [turns] around and he walks back in the house.

{¶ 7} Upon further questioning, Ervin acknowledged that she did not actually witness appellant shoot at her because she was running away from him at the time. Nonetheless, appellant was insistent that she heard appellant fire a shot from where he was standing on the front porch of his home. When asked how she could be certain that appellant fired a shot at her, Ervin stated: "Because I heard the pow and I knew he had a gun. And he was angry."

{¶ 8} As its next witness, the state called Brian Heath. Heath and his partner, Scott Bruhn (whom the state called as its third witness), were the first officers to arrive on the scene after Ervin called 911. Initially, Heath set up a perimeter around appellant's house. Meanwhile, Bruhn questioned Ervin, who informed him that appellant had just shot at her and was still inside the home. Eventually, Heath and Bruhn took appellantinto custody. Upon further questioning, Ervin explained to Bruhn that appellant had shot at her from the front porch of the home.

{¶ 9} After learning that appellant fired a shot at Ervin from his front porch, Bruhn alerted the detective bureau and began searching the area around the porch for a shell casing. Bruhn was accompanied by another officer, Michael Watson. Ultimately, Watson discovered one Hornady .25 ACP caliber spent shell casing on top of the grass five to six feet from the edge of the front porch. According to Watson, the location of the shell casing was consistent with Ervin's contention that appellant fired at her while standing on the front porch.

{¶ 10} For its fourth witness, the state called Nathaniel Sahdala. Sahdala also responded to the scene after Ervin called 911. After appellant was arrested and taken into custody, Sahdala entered appellant's home. Upon entry, Sahdala entered the dining room, where he observed a portion of carpet that was folded over with the rear half of a handgun visible underneath the carpet. Sahdala then rolled back the rest of the carpet that was folded and discovered two additional firearms, both of which were loaded. Thereafter, Sahdala retrieved the firearms and unloaded the ammunition. One of the firearms was a .25 caliber handgun, which contained Hornady .25 ACP ammunition matching the shell casing that Watson discovered next to the front porch.

{¶ 11} As its final witness, the state called detective Sherri Wise. Wise arrived at appellant's residence and was involved in the removal of the firearms from the dining room. Wise eventually interviewed appellant at the police station, where appellant admitted to having fired a weapon earlier in the day. Initially, appellant insisted that he shot a possum. However, the type of animal that was allegedly shot changed several times during the course of Wise's interrogation of appellant. Further, appellant claimed that he shot the animal with a Winchester rifle, which was not located at the residence. Ultimately, the three handguns that were removed from the residence were tested and found to be operable. Notably, Wise corroborated the previous testimony that the .25 caliber handgun that was removed contained ammunition matching the spent shell casing found on the lawn adjacent to the front porch.

{¶ 12} At the close of the state's case-in-chief, appellant moved for an acquittal under Crim.R. 29, arguing that the state failed to provide sufficient evidence as to the felonious assault count. After hearing arguments, the court denied appellant's motion. The court then provided instructions to the jury, and deliberations began. Ultimately, the jury found appellant guilty of felonious assault and having weapons while under disability, as well as the attendant firearm specification. The court immediately proceeded to sentencing, ordering appellant to serve 7 years in prison for the felonious assault count and 30 months in prison for the having weapons while under disability count. The court ordered the sentences to be served consecutive to one another, and consecutive to the mandatory 3-year sentence imposed pursuant to the firearmspecification, for a total prison sentence of 12.5 years. Appellant's timely appeal followed.

State v. Jefferson, 2017 WL 3575607 at ** 1-3 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. Aug. 18, 2017).

Jefferson challenged his conviction and sentence on direct appeal, raising the following two grounds for relief:

I. The trial court erred to the prejudice of appellant by denying his Rule 29 motion upon completion of the State's case in chief.

II. Appellant's conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence produced at trial.

(Doc. No. 28-1, Exh. 9.) On August 18, 2017, the state appellate court affirmed Jefferson's conviction and sentence. See State v. Jefferson, 2017 WL 3575607 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. Aug. 18, 2017).

On October 2, 2017, Jefferson, proceeding pro...