Jones v. Davis

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI
JEREMIAH ULYSSES JONES,
Petitioner, 	: 	Case No. 1:25-cv-00508
- vs - 	District Judge Michael R. Barrett
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz
CYNTHIA M. DAVIS, WARDEN,
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility,
:
Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This is a habeas corpus action brought by Petitioner Jeremiah Ulysses Jones to obtain relief
from his convictions in the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas. 	The case is before the
Court for decision on the merits on the Petition (ECF No. 1), the State Court Record (ECF No. 7)
and the Respondent’s Return of Writ (ECF No. 9). The Court set a date for Petitioner to file a
reply of twenty-one days after the Return was filed (Order for Answer, ECF No. 2, PageID 33),
but that date has passed and no reply has been filed.
Litigation History
On January 17, 2018, the Trumbull County Grand Jury handed down an indictment
Case: 1:25-cv-00508-MRB-MRM Doc #: 10 Filed: 01/28/26 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
charging Jones in Case No. 17-CR-790 with one count of aggravated robbery in violation of Ohio
Revised Code § §2911.01(A)(1) & (C), with a firearm specification. On April 23, 2019, the trial
court denied the motion to sever and granted the State’s amended motion to join cases 17-CR-790
and 18-CR-575 for trial purposes. (State Court Record, ECF No. 7, Exhibit 17). After negotiations
with the State, Petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge and specification and was sentenced to six
years confinement to be served consecutively to the sentence in 18-CR-625. Jones did not appeal.
On July 31, 2018, the Trumbull County Grand Jury handed down an indictment charging
Jones in Case No. 18-CR-575 with one count of aggravated robbery in violation of Ohio Revised
Code 	§2911.01(A)(1) & (C), with a firearm specification (count one); one count of aggravated
robbery, in violation of Ohio Revised Code §2911.01(A)(3) & (C), with a firearm specification
(count two); one count of felonious assault, a second degree felony, in violation of Ohio Revised
Code §2903.11(A)(1) & (D)(1)(a), with a firearm specification (count three); one count of
felonious assault in violation of Ohio Revised Code § 2903.11(A)(2) & (D)(1)(a), with a firearm
specification (count four); and one count of having weapons while under disability in violation of
Ohio Revised Code § 2923.13(A)(2) & (B) (count five)(Indictment, State Court Record, ECF No.
7, Ex. 20).
The trial court sentenced Jones to three years on count one, three years on count three and
twenty-four months on count five to be served concurrent to one another. Jones was also sentenced
to three years on the firearm specification attached to count one and three years on the firearm
specification attached to count three. The sentence on the two firearm specifications was merged
into a single three-year term to be served prior to and consecutive with the sentence imposed in
counts one, three and five. In addition, the sentence was ordered to run consecutive to the sentence
imposed in 18-CR-790 and 18-CR-625 for a total aggregate sentence in cases 17-CR-790, 18-CR-
Case: 1:25-cv-00508-MRB-MRM Doc #: 10 Filed: 01/28/26 Page: 2 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
575 and 18-CR-625 of eighteen years. (State Court Record, ECF No. 7, Exhibit 38). Jones took
no direct appeal.
On June 7, 2023, Jones moved to withdraw his guilty pleas on the ground he had received
ineffective assistance of trial counsel (Motion, State Court Record, ECF No. 7, Ex. 39). The trial
court denied the motion. Id. at Exs. 41, 42. Jones appealed in both cases and the Eleventh District
Court of Appeals consolidated the cases in which Jones presented one assignment of error: “The
trial court erred in denying Appellant’s motions to withdraw his guilty pleas as a manifest injustice
has occurred.” (Brief, ECF No. 7, Exhibit 46, PageID 266). The Eleventh District affirmed. State
v. Jones, 2024-Ohio-1124 (Ohio App. 11th Dist. Mar. 25, 2024), and the Ohio Supreme Court
declined jurisdiction over a subsequent appeal. State v. Jones, 174 Ohio St. 3d 1548 (2024).
Jones, through counsel, filed his habeas petition in this Court on July 23, 2025, pleading
the following single ground for relief:
GROUND ONE: Petitioner did not make a knowing and voluntary
plea since he was not competent to do so.
Supporting Facts: This is a proceeding based upon the Trial Courts
[sic] denial of Petitioner’s Motion to withdraw his prior guilty pleas.
The Trial Court denied such, essentially without comment. In the
within case although sentence has been imposed, it is submitted that
a manifest injustice took place which merits the setting aside of the
judgment 	of 	Petitioner’s 	convictions 	and 	merits 	permitting
Petitioner to withdraw his pleas.
For cause, Petitioner submits that he was not in fact guilty of charges
for which he was convicted and he was not properly represented by
counsel. He was further not properly advised of his constitutional
rights and he did not knowingly and intentionally waive his
constitutional rights prior to entering his pleas.
The record in this matter is quite clear that Petitioner’s original trial
counsel sought a finding that Petitioner was not competent to stand
trial. In that regard, two separate forensic examinations of Petitioner
occurred. First, the Forensic Psychiatric Center of North East Ohio
conducted an evaluation of Petitioner. (See attached). While the
Case: 1:25-cv-00508-MRB-MRM Doc #: 10 Filed: 01/28/26 Page: 3 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
evaluator eventually determined that Petitioner was competent to
stand trial, a variety of troubling factual findings were made in the
process of that evaluation, to wit; (1) Petitioner cannot read or write,
beyond signing his name; (2) Petitioner was a very young man and
had 	always 	been 	in 	special 	education 	classes 	throughout 	his
educational career; (3) there was “no doubt” that Petitioner suffered
from an intellectual disability and several tests showed Petitioner’s
IQ to be in an extremely low range of 56; (4) Petitioner was unsure
of the role of a judge in a trial proceeding; and (5) it was very
difficult to gauge a level of Petitioner’s concentration. This first
evaluation was based upon a TOMM test that was administered
indicating some level of malingering by Petitioner as to memory
and it was then concluded that petitioner was competent. A second
evaluation was ordered.
The second evaluation was conducted by TRAVCO Behavioral
Health and essentially accepted the findings of the first evaluation.
The second evaluation was based entirely upon an interview with
Petitioner 	which 	occurred 	on 	one 	occasion 	and 	lasted 	for
approximately 45 minutes.
After these evaluations were stipulated to and submitted to the Trial
Court, the Trial Court found Petitioner to be competent to stand trial.
Petitioner had obtained new counsel who unilaterally opted to
withdraw Petitioner’s competency motions in the cases at bar.
Petitioner neither understood nor authorized this action by his trial
counsel, as was clearly indicated in Petitioner’s affidavit submitted
to the Trial Court and part of the Record in this matter. Frankly, the
decision to withdraw the competency motions is inexplicable since
a criminal defendant may appeal an adverse competency ruling,
even if that defendant eventually enters into a plea arrangement. In
light of the factual findings contained in the initial competency
evaluation discussed above, Petitioner respectfully submit that a
manifest injustice has occurred in the case at bar. Consequently
Petitioner’s pleas were not knowing and voluntary he should have
been permitted to withdraw his prior guilty pleas.
(Petition, ECF No. 1, PageID 5, 16-17).
Analysis
Respondent asserts this case is barred by the statute of limitations (Return, ECF No. 9,
PageID 388-95). Offered an opportunity by the standard form of § 2254 Petition to explain why
Case: 1:25-cv-00508-MRB-MRM Doc #: 10 Filed: 01/28/26 Page: 4 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

5
the Petition is timely, Petitioner’s counsel wrote: “One year did not start to run until 1 year after
exhaustion of stae [sic] remedies regarding Motion to Withdraw guilty plea. Petition is timely filed
within one year thereof.” (Petition, ECF No. 1, PageID 13). As noted above, Petitioner’s counsel
has not filed a Reply and therefore has not offered any further argument on timeliness.
The default date for the statute of limitations to begin to run is the date on which a
conviction becomes final on direct review. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). Because Petitioner did not
appeal his convictions, his conviction became final on the last day he could have appealed, which
was thirty days after judgment, or September 13, 2019. Petitioner filed no collateral attacks on the
judgment during the following year which would have tolled the statute under §2244(d)(2).
Therefore the statute of limitations ran one year later on September 13, 2020. Because the Petition
here was not filed until July 23, 2025, it is barred by the statute.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Magistrate Judge respectfully recommends that the
Petition be dismissed with prejudice as barred by the statute of limitations. Because reasonable
jurists would not disagree with this conclusion, it is also recommended that Petitioner be denied a
certificate of appealability and that the Court certify to the Sixth Circuit that any appeal would be
objectively frivolous and should not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis.
January 28, 2026.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge
Case: 1:25-cv-00508-MRB-MRM Doc #: 10 Filed: 01/28/26 Page: 5 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

6
NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen days after being served with this Report
and Recommendations. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected to and
shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. A party may respond
to another party’s objections within fourteen days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure
to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal.
Case: 1:25-cv-00508-MRB-MRM Doc #: 10 Filed: 01/28/26 Page: 6 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>