Baker v. Barrett
Decision Date | 14 March 2014 |
Docket Number | CASE NO. 2:13-CV-11092 |
Parties | DANNIE RAY BAKER, Petitioner, v. JOE BARRETT, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
I. RECOMMENDATION................................................................ 2
II. REPORT ........................................................................... 2
III. NOTICE TO PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS...................................... 45
* * * * *
I. RECOMMENDATION: The Court should deny petitioner's application for the writ of habeas corpus and should deny petitioner a certificate of appealability.
II. REPORT:
A. Procedural History
1. Petitioner Dannie Ray Baker is a state prisoner, currently confined at the Cooper Street Correctional Facility in Jackson, Michigan.
2. On July 22, 2008, petitioner was convicted of negligent homicide, MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.324; operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated causing death (OWI), MICH. COMP. LAWS § 257.625(4); and operating a vehicle while license suspended causing death, MICH. COMP. LAWS § 257.904(4), following a jury trial in the Wayne County Circuit Court. On August 12, 2008, he was sentenced to two concurrent terms of 10-15 years' imprisonment on the OWI and suspended license convictions, and to a concurrent term of 16-24 months' imprisonment on the negligent homicide conviction.
3. Petitioner appealed as of right to the Michigan Court of Appeals raising, through counsel, the following claims:
The court of appeals found no merit to petitioner's first three claims, and affirmed his convictions and sentences. However, the court remanded for correction of the presentence report. See People v. Baker, No. 287849, 2010 WL 746396 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 4, 2010) (per curiam).
4. Petitioner, proceeding pro se, sought leave to appeal these issues to the Michigan Supreme Court. Petitioner also raised two additional claims:
The Supreme Court denied petitioner's application for leave to appeal in a standard order. See People v. Baker, 488 Mich. 870, 788 N.W.2d 428 (2010).
5. Petitioner subsequently filed a motion for relief from judgment in the trial court pursuant to MICH. CT. R. 6.500-.508, raising the following claims:
On November 17, 2011, the trial court denied petitioner's motion for relief from judgment, concluding that petitioner's claims were barred by MICH. CT. R. 6.508(D)(3) because he failed to raise the claims on direct appeal and could not show actual prejudice. In making this determination, the trial court rejected the merits of each claim. See People v. Baker, No. 07-023800-01-FH (Wayne County, Mich., Cir. Ct. Nov. 17, 2011) [hereinafter "Trial Ct. op."]. The Michigan Court of Appeals and Michigan Supreme Court denied petitioner's applications for leave to appeal in standard orders.
See People v. Baker, 493 Mich. 894, 822 N.W.2d 564 (2012); People v. Baker, No. 308257 (Mich. Ct. App. June 19, 2012).
6. Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed the instant application for a writ of habeas corpus on March 11, 2013. As grounds for the writ of habeas corpus, he raises the first two claims raised on direct appeal in the Michigan Court of Appeals, the second through sixth claims raised in his motion for relief from judgment, and a claim of cumulative error.
7. Respondent filed his answer on September 23, 2013. He contends that petitioner's second through fifth and eighth claims, as well as portions of his first claim, are barred by petitioner's procedural default in the state courts. Respondent also argues that each of petitioner's claims is without merit.
8. Petitioner filed a reply to respondent's answer on November 12, 2013.
B. Factual Background Underlying Petitioner's Conviction
Petitioner's conviction arises from a traffic accident on Michigan Avenue in the city of Inkster on November 9, 2007. On that date, petitioner was scheduled to report to the Inkster Police Department to spend the weekend in jail.1 Shortly before arriving petitioner consumed half to three-quarters of a pint of vodka, and took two Ambien sleeping pills. He did so, he claimed, to help him sleep while at the jail. Petitioner claimed that he did not know what the pills were that he took, but had gotten them from his girlfriend's mother. When he arrived at the jail, communication assistant Christine Millisor noticed the smell of alcohol on petitioner, and informed Officer Doug Parson of this fact. Eventually Lieutenant Thomas Diaz administered a preliminary breath test to petitioner,which produced a result of .09. Diaz told Baker that he would have to leave, as jail policy disallowed weekenders to report under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Petitioner falsely informed petitioner that he had been dropped off at the station. Diaz told pe...
To continue reading
Request your trial