12- Q469- NO. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORM PAUPERIS AND FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Transcription

1 NAL SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OHIO DAVID S. HOPPER, PETITIONER STATE OF OHIO, RESPONDENT V. 12- Q469- NO. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORM PAUPERIS AND FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Comes now the Petitioner, David S. Hopper, pro se, and moves this court F LD MAR * CLEAK OF COURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO pursuant to Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 44(A), and all other applicable law, for leave to proceed on his Writ of Habeas Corpus action In Forma Pauperis. As grounds for this Motion to proceed forthwith `In Forma Pauperis' and for Appointment of Counsel, Petitioner states as follows. 1. That Petitioner has filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus Petition in the Ohio State Supreme Court. 2. That Petitioner is not able to hire private counsel to assist him in perfecting his Petition. Petitioner is an indigent according to the provisions of Rule 44(A) id. and requires farther assistance of an attorney, in order to supplement his pro se pleadings. 3. That Petitioner is currently incarcerated at the Luther Luckett Correctional Complex, LaGrange, Kentucky and is not able, to hire private counsel to assist him in perfecting his Petition. The Petitioner also respectfully requests this court, pursuant to Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 44(A) to appoint counsel to represent him in his Writ of Habeas Corpus Petition proceeding. Petitioner is financially unable to employ counsel. (See 12

2 attached Affidavit of Indigence and six month prison account statement.) The Petitioner request counsel to be appointed to supplement his pro se Writ of Habeas Corpus Petition; FURTHERNIORE; Petitioner believes that in the event the State of Ohio will dispute his arguments, that it will be necessary to conduct an evidentiary hearing, including testimony from trial counsel. Petitioner is a lay person and not trained in the law. Under Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure, he would be entitled to appointment of counsel in such circumstances. WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests the court to grant him leave to proceed In Forma Pauperis and pursue this action. Petitioner further requests the appointment of an attorney to supplement his pro se Writ of Habeas Corpus Petition pursuant to Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedures Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 44(A), to grant counsel leave to supplement any and all other issues and grounds for holding the sentence[s] and subsequent detainer[s] invalid, of which counsel learns and which Petitioner has failed to raise in his Writ of Habeas Corpus Petition. Such relief is warranted under the provisions of the Constitution of the State of Ohio section , , , , , and Petitioner asks for any other relief to which he may be entitled. t David S. Hop er, Pro Se Luther Luckett Correctional Complex 1612 Dawkins Road LaGrange, Kentuclcy

3 NOTICE The foregoing motion was mailed by first class postage prepaid to the Clerlc of the Ohio State Supreme Court on this 15"'day of March PETITIONER ' DAVID S. HOPPER, PRO SE 14

4 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OHIO DAVID S. HOPPER, PETITIONER V. NO. ORDER TO PROCEED IN FORM PAUPERIS AND FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL STATE OF OHIO, RESPONDENT. * The Petitioner, having moved this court for an order to proceed In Forma Pauperis, and it appearing to the court that the Petitioner is a pauper within the meaning of, and the court being sufficiently advised: proceeding. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Honorable, be appointed to represent Petitioner in this ENTERED THIS day of, Judge, The Ohio State Supreme Court 15

5 ATTACHMENT NOT SCANNED

6 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OHIO DAVID S. HOPPER, PETITIONER STATE OF OHIO, COUNTY OF WARREN, COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY, COUNTY OF FRANKLIN, COUNTY OF HAMILTON, RESPONDENTS NO. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS David S. Hopper, Petitioner, pro se, hereby files a Petition under Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure for a Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging his conviction and sentence. Petitioner is currently a Commonwealth of Kentucky Department of Corrections inmate under a sentence of twenty years with related detainers from the state of Ohio for Indictment Numbers 08CR25107 (Warren County Common Pleas Court), 2006 CR (Montgomery County Common Pleas Court), 06 CR (Franklin County Common Pleas Court), and B (Hamilton County Common Pleas Court). Petitioner is currently being held at Luther Luckett Correctional Complex, 1612 Dawlcins Road, LaGrange, Kentuclcy on the said detainers in violation of the Constitution of the State of Ohio and the Constitution of the United States. His inmate number is Clark Taylor is the Warden of Luther Luckett Correctional Complex, which the address is 1612 Dawkins Road, LaGrange, Kentucky

7 I. JURISDICTION Petitioner does not currently have any petition, application, motion or appeal pending in any Court, either state or federal, as to the detainer[s], conviction[s], and sentence[s] at issue in this matter. Petitioner also has exhausted in the courts of Ohio the claim[s] that he advances in this petition. Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure grants the either the Ohio State Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Court of Common Pleas, Probate Court, or by a Judge of any such Court the authorization to grant writ. Ohio Rales of Criminal Procedure gives jurisdiction to the county of which the inmate, petitioner, is currently housed, the jurisdictional authority to issue the writ. S}nce, it is the detainers of several Ohio jurisdictions that are being attacked within, the jurisdiction falls to either the Ohio Supreme Court or the Ohio Court of Appeals. II. PRIOR ATTORNEYS At trial level of this case, Petitioner was represented by the Honorable Donald E. Oda II; who is located in the county of Warren, Ohio. Petitioner had no direct appeal. There was no post-conviction action[s] filed in this present case. III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Petitioner seeks review of his convictions in the afore-mentioned indictments, on the grounds that they violated established provisions with-in the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD). The facts of the present case are:

8 1. On 6 February 2006 the Petitioner was arrested by the Boone County Sherriff's Department (Boone County, Kentucky) on an arrest warrant issued in Campbell County, Kentucky for offenses committed in 2004 and These offenses were deemed to be related to crimes cominitted in multiple jurisdictions in Kentuclcy, Indiana, and Ohio (Warren, Franklin, Montgomery, and Hamilton counties). Whereas, those jurisdictions filed detainers on the Petitioner. 2. In regards to the out-of-state detainers lodged againsthim, the Petitioner waived extradition proceedings. 3. Approximately eighteen months after his arrest, while still in custody in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the Warren County Common Pleas Court executed the Interstate Agreement on Detainers to have officials in Kentucky (the sending state) produce the Petitioner for arraignment in Warren County, Ohio (the receiving state). 4. On 30 July 2007 the Warren County Common Pleas Court brought the Petitioner, David S. Hopper, before the court via mechanical means for the purpose of arraignment on indictment number 08CR (File entry on 1 August 2007). 5. The Petitioner was returned to the custody of the Commonwealth of Kentucky (the sending state) at the conclusion of the proceedings of the Warren Couhty Common Pleas Court (the receiving state) on 30 July Petitioner was then returned to the Warren County Common Pleas Court, State of Ohio, on 7 April 2008 to face the charges relating to Indictment No. 08 CR after which, he was transported to the Montgomery County, Ohio Common Pleas Court to face charges for Indictment No CR under the same

9 interstate detainer agreement as the Warren County Common Pleas Court. After which, the Petitioner was transported to the Franklin County Common Pleas Court jurisdiction to face charges relating to Indictment No. 06CR which relied on the same interstate detainer as the Warren,County Common Pleas Court. After which, the Petitioner was transportedto the jurisdiction of the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court to answer to Indictment No. B , the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court also relying on the original interstate detainer as of the Warren County Common Pleas Court. 7. At the conclusion of the Hamilton, County; Ohio proceedings the Petitioner was transported back to the sending state (Kentucky) to finish serving his sentence imposed in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Thus, completing the shuttling of the Petitioner between the two states. IV. HABEAS STANDARD OF REVIEW Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure states: and Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure states a writ must be granted:

10 In applying ReP and/or ReP the Petitioner is entitled to relief if the record can support his claims to improper, imconstitutional confinement. V. 'HABEAS GROUND[S] FOR RELIEF THE WARREN COUNTY, THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY, THE FRANKLIN COUNTY AND THE HAMILTON COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURTS LACKED CONSTITUTIONAL LEGAL AUTHORITY TO PROSECUTE; DUE TO THEIR VIOLATION OF THE INTERSTATE AGREEMENT ON DETAINERS ANTI-SHUTTLING PROVISIONS 1. Summary of Argument The convictions and sentences of the above-mentioned courts were invalidated by the said courts misapplication of provisions within the Interstate Agreement on Detainers. 1. When on 30 July 2007 the Warren County Common Pleas Court brought the defendant, David S. Hopper, before the Court via mechanical means for the purpose of arraignment. 2. The Ohio Supreme Court has held, "A properly functioning video arraignment is the equivalent of an in-court arraignment." State v. Phillips, 74 Ohio st. 3d 72, 656 N.E. 2d 643 (1995). As was supported by the Florida Supreme Court in RE Rule (a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, FNl and the Missouri Supreme Court in Guinan v. State, 769 S.W. 2d 427, 431 (1989). This principle was further delineated in, United States v. Reynolds, 44. M.J. 726 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 1996). 5

11 3. Ohio, along with a majority of other states, to include the Commonwealth of Kentucky, have entered into the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD), on which these Courts relied in the present case: 4. Article III of the IAD, grants a prisoner, against whom a detainer has been lodged, the right to request a final disposition of the relevant charges; and subsequently Article IV gives the jurisdiction in which charges remain untried, the right to have a prisoner made available for trial. Alabama v. Bozeman, 533 U.S. 146, 148 at , 121 S.ct. 2079, 150 L.Ed. 2d 189 (2001). Once invoked, each article provides specific language, however they differ to a time frame, with-in a trial must be had. Each Article also contains what has come to be known as an "Anti-Shuttling" provision, prohibiting the return of a prisoner to the sending state before completion of the trial for which he was initially transferred. Article IV (e) specifies: 5. The Petitioner holds that as of his video arraignment on 30 July 2007 he was for all legal.purposes transported to the Warren County (Ohio) Common Pleas Court jurisdiction and subsequently returned to the Commonwealth of Kentucky at the close of those proceedings. Referring to Phillips, id, Guinan, id, and U.S. v. Reynolds, id. 6. Petitioner further holds that upon his transport to the Warren County (Ohio), Detention Center on 4 Apri12008, and his subsequent appearance before the 6

12 Warren County (Ohio), Common Pleas Court on 7 Aprii12008 to face charges related to indictment no. 08 CR for which he was arraigned on 30 July 2007, that the said Court had lost its constitutional legal authority in this present case. IAD Article IV (e). And that his. subsequent appearances before the Montgomery, Franklin, and Hamilton Common Pleas Courts were constitutionally invalid, for those said courts, in relying, on the same interstate detainer as of the Warren County Common Pleas Court also lacked constitutional legal authority to adjudicate the afore-mentioned indictments. 7. Petitioner, David S. Hopper, pro se, asserts that he has practiced constitutional due diligence in this present matter, in as he has sought relief from the unconstitutionally placed detainers, which are relied upon under the convictions of the said courts whom lacked effective legal authority to prosecute and sentence the petitioner. Referring to Phillips, id, Guinan, id, and U.S. v. Reynolds, id. 8. Petitioner holds that he has practiced due diligence in this present case. In that the facts as presented, are of a newly discovered nature that were unknown to his attorncy. Or, if lcnown by counsel, was not shared nor indicated to the petitioner during the course of the legal proceedings in this matter. 9. The Petitioner, David S. Hopper, at the time of the 30 July 2007 arraignment proceedings was under the psychological care of a clinical psychiatrist and a social worker specializing in the treatment of individuals suffering from a psychological disorder known as `Dysassociative Identity Disorder' (DID). Furthermore, the defendant was receiving anti-psychotic medication at the time

13 of the arraignment hearing and subsequent court related proceedings in said court[s]. The combination of the medications and mental disorder precluded the defendant from realizing the proceedings that the court[s] initiated. 10. The defendant's mental condition was known to the Warren County Detention Center medical and security staff and this information was shared with the subsequent jurisdictions, all of which, continued treatment. Thus, the Courts, through due diligence of their own could have ascertained the mental liabilities of the defendant during the course of its adjudication of the said matter. The Warren County Detention Center medical staff had spoken with a mental health professional, Carol Brady, who was privately hired by the petitioner's family for the purpose of the treatment of `Dysassociative Identity Disorder' and they, the Warren County Detention Center medical staff, had interviewed the petitioner on numerous occasions and even altered his medication to help alleviate the symptoms of the disorder. With this deep involvement of Warren, Montgomery, Franklin, and Hanulton County officials, the Courts, in their neglect to address the matter, as known, unconstitutionally denied the defendant due process. II. PRAYER FOR RELIEF A. Issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus that the Petitioner be brought before the court to be discharged of his unconstitutionally instituted detainers and relieved of his unconstitutional conviction[s] and sentence[s]; or in the alternative;

14 B. Order the respondent[s] to produce the video records and pleadings from the trial level proceedings as deemed just and appropriate as well as appropriate transcripts of the video records; and, C. Order such hearings as may be necessary; and, D. Order the appointment of counsel to perfect this pro se petition as delineated in the so attached Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Appointment of Counsel. Wherefore, the Petitioner sayeth no more. Respectfully slbmitted, David S. Hopper, Pro se, Petitioner 1612 Dawkins Road LaGrange, Kentu.clcy VERIFICATION David Hopper, after being duly sworn, states that he has read this `Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus' and all statements it contains are true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. David S. Hoppe"r,' Pro se, Petitioner 1612 Dawkins Road LaGrange, Kentucky 40031,

15 ,NOTARYSTATEMENT Subscribed and sworn to before me by David Scott Hopper on this 15`h day of March NOTARY PiI4IC STATE AT LARGE, KENTUCKY w commission expires. ^ ^,^8^ KY Aup.i6, 2ptd NOTICE Notice is hereby given that the foregoing Petition was mailed via first class postage to the Honorable Clerk of the Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio this 15`h day of March `a- David Pro se, Petitioner 1612 Dawkins Road LaGrange, Kentucky

16 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of this pleading was mailed via first class postage to the Honorable Mike DeWine, Ohio Attorney General, 30 East Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215; the Honorable David P. Fornshell, State Attorney for the County of Warren, 500 Justice Drive, Lebanon, Ohio 45036; the Honorable Mathias H Heck Jr., State Attorney for the County of Montgomery, P.O. Box 972, Dayton, Ohio ; the Honorable Ron O'Brien, State Attorney for the County of Franklin, 373 South High Street, 14ih floor, Columbus, Ohio 43215; the Honorable Joseph T. Deters, State Attorney for the County of Hamilton, 230 East Ninth Street, Suite 4000 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202; on this 15a day of March David S. Hoppd Pro se, Petitioner 1612 Dawkins Road LaGrange, Kentucky

17 COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS LUTHER LUCKETT CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX (Institution) CERTIFICATION OF FUNDS DEPOSITED IN PRISONER'S INSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNT Inmate Name: a(first) (Middie) JN of the Z Inmate Accounts Office, do hereby certify that the sum of $ alo irl- SO has been deposited to this inmate's account during the preceding six months. Signature of Authorized Officer Date Sub cribed and worn to before me by ^ on this 244 day of _, 20 OZ,- Notary Public, State at Large My Commission expires: NGt3ry PLINHc, Sit f 'a Large, KY My Cv172`7,v :^r:a 3:".p1 es,-f:i. 4, 2c3iZ Wotzsr^, 0-14G74fi2