Groves v. Warden, Dayton Correctional Institution

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

JESSICA GROVES, : : Petitioner, : Case No. 3:23-cv-160 : v. : Judge Thomas M. Rose : WARDEN, DAYTON : Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, : : Respondent. : ______________________________________________________________________________

ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. NO. 17); ADOPTING, IN FULL, THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. NO. 15); AND, TERMINATING THIS CASE ON THE COURT’S DOCKET ______________________________________________________________________________

The instant petition for habeas corpus is currently before the Court on the Report and Recommendations (the “Report”) (Doc. No. 15) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers, as well as Petitioner Jessica Groves’ (“Groves”) Objections to Report and Recommendations (the “Objections”) (Doc. No. 17). By way of her Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (the “Petition”) (Doc. No. 1), Groves seeks relief from her term of imprisonment, imposed by the Scioto County Court of Common Pleas, alleging that her trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in her state court criminal proceedings. (See Doc. No. 1 at PageID 2.) Magistrate Judge Deavers recommends that Groves’ Petition be denied with prejudice and Groves should be denied a certificate of appealability, either in forma pauperis or otherwise. (Doc. No. 15 at PageID 3349.) Groves’ Objections largely repeat the allegations contained in her Petition, primarily arguing that her trial counsel was ineffective due to a lack of any trial strategy. (See Doc. No. 17 at PageID 3356.) The facts of Groves’ case are truly harrowing and they have been adequately detailed in the Scioto County Court of Common Pleas (Doc. No. 9 at PageID 126-33), the Ohio Court of Appeals (id. at PageID 206-31), and Magistrate Judge Deavers’ Report (Doc. No. 15 at PageID 3317-31). The Court will not suffer its readers to recite the details of this case in their entirety yet again. For the purposes of this Order, the Court only notes that Groves was prosecuted and

convicted for a series of crimes after she caused the death of her infant son on March 28, 2019, and proceeded to hide the body in a well near her home. (Doc. No. 9 at PageID 226-27.) In particular, in early January of 2020, following a jury trial, Groves was convicted in the Scioto County Court of Common Pleas of aggravated murder, murder, kidnapping, endangering children, tampering with evidence, interference with custody, gross abuse of a corpse, and four counts of felonious assault. (Id. at PageID 126-28.) She was consequently sentenced by the state court to a prison term of life without parole. (Id. at PageID 130-31.) In her Report, Magistrate Judge Deavers reviewed Groves’ claim that she received ineffective assistance of trial counsel consistent with the Supreme Court’s precedent in Strickland

v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1983). (See Doc. No. 15 at PageID 3333.) Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Deavers found at every turn that Groves’ trial counsel in the Court of Common Pleas did not provide deficient representation nor did counsel’s performance otherwise prejudice Groves at trial. (Id. at PageID 3333-48.) Groves objects to Magistrate Judge Deavers’ findings, mainly balking at the characterization of her crimes as murder rather than involuntary manslaughter. (See e.g., Doc. No. 17 at PageID 3355.) If a party objects within the allotted time to a United States magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then 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.” Id. The Court “may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Id. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the entire record in this case and neither

Groves’ Petition nor her Objections are well-taken. At trial, Groves’ counsel presented her defense, or lack thereof, pursuant to a strategy developed with Groves’ consent. As Magistrate Judge Deavers correctly held, this can hardly constitute deficient performance under Strickland. Even assuming Groves’ trial counsel did offer deficient performance, there is no indication that she could have been actually prejudiced by it. When prosecuting her, the State presented overwhelming evidence of Groves’ guilt. Groves’ conviction was a forgone conclusion. Whether Groves would prefer to refer to her actions as involuntary manslaughter rather than murder is irrelevant. Involuntary manslaughter is a crime unto itself, not a defense for murder. No, Groves very much earned the prison sentence she currently serves, and, the Court

would not dare deprive her of the opportunity to repay her debt to society based on such flimsy premises. Therefore, Groves Objections are OVERRULED. The Court ACCEPTS the findings and recommendations made by Magistrate Judge Deavers, ADOPTS the Report and Recommendations (Doc. No. 15), and DISMISSES the present action WITH PREJUDICE. Because reasonable jurists could not disagree with this outcome, Groves is further DENIED a certificate of appealability and shall not be permitted leave to appeal in forma pauperis. The Clerk is directed to TERMINATE this case on the Court’s docket. DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Thursday, January 2, 2025. s/Thomas M. Rose ________________________________ THOMAS M. ROSE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE