JAKE PAUL HEINEY v. DONNA MOORE, Director, Lucas County Adult Probation Department; MOLLY HICKS, Probation Officer, Lucas County Adult Probation Department - Articles

All Content

JAKE PAUL HEINEY v. DONNA MOORE, Director, Lucas County Adult Probation Department; MOLLY HICKS, Probation Officer, Lucas County Adult Probation Department

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Aug 13, 2025

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Steven J. Alagna, Kyle Lorey, WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, St. Louis, Missouri, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Evy M. Jarrett, LUCAS COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE, Toledo, Ohio, for Appellees.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Steven J. Alagna, Kyle Lorey, Charlotte Morse, Colton Woodson, WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, St. Louis, Missouri, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Evy M. Jarrett, LUCAS COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE, Toledo, Ohio, for Appellees.

Judge(s): CLAY, READLER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Toledo

DAVIS, Circuit Judge. Jake Paul Heiney appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus. A jury convicted Heiney of two counts of gross sexual imposition and one count of tampering with records. After exhausting his state appellate and post-conviction remedies, he sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging, among other things, the sufficiency of the evidence. Heiney moved to expand the record to include all trial exhibits admitted during his state proceedings. The district court denied both his motion and his habeas petition. So Heiney appealed. This court granted a limited certificate of appealability (“COA”) to consider a single issue: whether the district court adjudicated Heiney’s petition on an incomplete record. Heiney now asks us to vacate the denial of his habeas petition, reverse the order denying his motion to expand the record, and remand for further proceedings. But because the district court appropriately considered the state court record concerning Heiney’s claims, we see no error in its denial of Heiney’s motion. We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s order denying the motion to expand the record.

Attachments: