Filed: Jul. 28, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 28, 2014
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION CHARLES R. SIMPSON, District Judge. This matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for consideration of the petition of Patrick W. Meeks, pro se, for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. The magistrate judge issued a report and a recommendation that Meeks' petition be denied. No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge's report. Meeks was convicted on 2002 of wanton murder, first-degree robbery, conspiracy to commit murder, and
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION CHARLES R. SIMPSON, District Judge. This matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for consideration of the petition of Patrick W. Meeks, pro se, for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. The magistrate judge issued a report and a recommendation that Meeks' petition be denied. No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge's report. Meeks was convicted on 2002 of wanton murder, first-degree robbery, conspiracy to commit murder, and t..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION
CHARLES R. SIMPSON, District Judge.
This matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for consideration of the petition of Patrick W. Meeks, pro se, for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The magistrate judge issued a report and a recommendation that Meeks' petition be denied. No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge's report.
Meeks was convicted on 2002 of wanton murder, first-degree robbery, conspiracy to commit murder, and tampering with physical evidence. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for twenty-five years. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal by the Supreme Court of Kentucky in 2006. His motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 11.42 was also denied at the trial and appellate court levels. He then filed the present habeas petition.
The magistrate judge found that the four claims of trial error were found by the state appellate court to have been procedurally defaulted as they were not raised on direct appeal. Meeks did not establish cause and prejudice to excuse the default. House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518, 536 (2006). Further, the magistrate judge found the four claims so lacking in merit that Meeks could not establish a miscarriage of justice in enforcing the default. Seymour v. Walker, 224 F.3d 542, 549-50 (6th Cir. 2000). The court will accept the recommendation of the magistrate judge that the court deny grounds one through four as procedurally defaulted.
Meeks also claims that his counsel was ineffective for failing to prevail in challenging the sufficiency of the indictment and jury instructions and his double jeopardy claims. The magistrate judge properly evaluated the record and concluded that the state court was correct in its conclusion under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) that there was no showing of deficient performance by counsel. The court will therefore accept the magistrate judge's recommendation that the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel be denied.
For these reasons, the petition for writ of habeas corpus will be denied by separate order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
