Bridinger v. Berghuis
| Decision Date | 02 May 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 05-60114.,05-60114. |
| Parties | Leon BRIDINGER, Petitioner, v. Mary BERGHUIS, Respondent.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
The Court having reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation in this case, as well as any objections thereto filed by the parties, and being fully advised, now therefore;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.
1. By Order entered this date, Mary Berghuis has been substituted for Percy Conerly as the proper respondent in this case.
KOMIVES, United States Magistrate Judge.
A. Procedural History
1. Petitioner Leon Bridinger is a state prisoner, currently confined at the West Shoreline
Correctional Facility in Muskegon Heights, Michigan.
2. On February 3, 2003, petitioner was convicted of one count of second degree fleeing and eluding, Micn. COMP. LAWS § 750.479a(4)(a); and one count of operating a vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor—first offense (OUIL), Mica. COMP. LAWS § 257.625, pursuant to his plea of nolo contendere in the Clinton County Circuit Court. On March 3, 2003, he was sentenced to prison term of 38 months to 10 years. The trial court denied petitioner's motion for resentencing on April 23, 2004.
Meanwhile, petitioner, proceeding pro se, sought leave to appeal the trial court's denial of his request for counsel on appeal. On September 18, 2003, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, the court of appeals remanded the matter to the trial court for counsel to be appointed, pursuant to the court's decision in Tesmer v. Granholm, 333 F.3d 683 (6th Cir.2003) (en banc). See People v. Bridinger, No. 248998 (Mich.Ct. App. Sept. 18, 2003).
Appointed appellate counsel subsequently filed an application for leave to appeal, raising the following claims:
I. THE TRIAL COURT'S FAILURE TO ASK DEFENDANT-APPELLANT WHETHER DEFEDANT-APPELLANT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT DURING SENTENCING ENTITLES DEFENDANT-APPELLANT TO RESENTENCING.
II. DEFENDANT WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHERE DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO OBJECT TO THE CLEARLY ERRONEOUS SCORING OF THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES.
III. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHERE THE TRIAL COURT RECORD IS SILENT AS TO THE REASONS DEFENDANT-APPELANT'S ORIGINAL SCORING OF THE MICHIGAN SENTENCING GUIDELINES WERE INCREASED AND WRITTEN EVIDENCE OF THOSE REASONS WAS OMITTED FROM THE COURT FILE.
The court of appeals denied petitioner's application for leave to appeal, but remanded to the trial court for filing of an amended presentence investigation report documenting the correction of the sentencing guidelines to 19-38 months as stipulated by the parties at sentencing. See People v. Bridinger, No. 255552 (Mich.Ct. App. July 20, 2004).
5. Petitioner, proceeding pro se, sought leave to appeal these three issues to the Michigan Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied petitioner's application for leave to appeal in a standard order. See People v. Bridinger, 472 Mich. 868, 692 N.W.2d 840 (2005).
6. Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed the instant application for a writ of habeas corpus on May 19, 2005. As grounds for the writ of habeas corpus, he raises the three claims that he raised on direct appeal in the state courts.
7. Respondent filed his answer on November 28, 2005. He contends that petitioner's claims are without merit or not cognizable on habeas review.
B. Factual Background Underlying Petitioner's Plea and Sentence
Petitioner pleaded nolo contendere to second degree fleeing and eluding and to OUIL-first offense. In exchange for petitioner's plea to these charges, the prosecutor agreed to dismiss several other charges against petitioner, to wit: OUIL-third offense, driving without insurance, operating a vehicle on a suspended license, and larceny less than $200. See Plea Tr., at 3-4. In response to questioning from the court, petitioner indicated that he understood the plea agreement, that no one had threatened him or made any promises to him in exchange for his plea, and that he had discussed the matter with counsel and was satisfied with counsel's representation. See id. at 4-7. Petitioner also indicated that he understood that the maximum penalty on the OUIL charge was 93 days in jail, and that the maximum penalty on the fleeing and eluding charge was 10 years in prison. See id. at 8. The trial court informed petitioner of the rights he was giving up by pleading nolo contendere, and petitioner acknowledged that he understood those rights. See id. at 9-12. Petitioner indicated that it was his own decision to plead nolo contendere. See id. at 12. The court then relied on the police report to establish a factual basis for the plea, and accepted petitioner's plea. See id. at 14-15.
Prior to sentencing, the prosecutor submitted a letter to the court indicating various corrections that should be made to the presentence investigation report. These changes resulted in an amended guideline range of 19-38 months' imprisonment on the minimum term. Petitioner's counsel stipulated to these corrections. See Sentence Tr., at 4-5. Petitioner's only objection at sentencing was to the amount of jail credit calculated in the presentence investigation report. See id. at 3-4. After hearing arguments from the prosecutor and defense counsel, and affording petitioner an opportunity to address the court, the court sentenced petitioner to prison term of 38 months to 10 years on the fleeing and eluding charge, with credit for 42 days of time served, and to a jail term of 42 days on the OUIL conviction, with credit for 42 days of time served. See id. at 8.
C. Standard of Review
Because petitioner's application was filed after April 24, 1996, his petition is governed by the provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (Apr. 24, 1996). See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 326-27, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997). Amongst other amendments, the AEDPA amended the substantive standards for granting habeas relief by providing:
(d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim—
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or
(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
"[T]he `contrary to' and `unreasonable application' clauses [have] independent meaning." Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000); see also, Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 694, 122 S.Ct. 1843, 152 L.Ed.2d 914 (2002). "A state court's decision is `contrary to' ... clearly established law if it `applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in [Supreme Court cases]' or if it `confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of Court and nevertheless arrives at a result different from [this] precedent.'" Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U.S. 12, 15-16, 124 S.Ct. 7, 157 L.Ed.2d 263 (2003) (per curiam) (quoting Williams, 529 U.S. at 405-06, 120 S.Ct. 1495); see also Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8, 123 S.Ct. 362, 154 L.Ed.2d 263 (2002); Bell 535 U.S. at 694, 122 S.Ct. 1843. "[T]he `unreasonable application' prong of § 2254(d)(1) permits a federal habeas court to `grant the writ if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from Court but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts' of petitioner's case." Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 520, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003) (quoting Williams, 529 U.S. at 413, 120 S.Ct. 1495); see also, Bell, 535 U.S. at 694, 122 S.Ct. 1843. However, Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 520-21, 123 S.Ct. 2527 (citations omitted); see also, Williams, 529 U.S. at 409, 120 S.Ct. 1495.
By its terms, § 2254(d)(1)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Of Conn. v. Parker
... ... denied, 549 U.S. 987, 127 S. Ct. 462, 166 L. Ed. 2d 329 (2006), with Bridinger ... v. Berghuis , 429 F. Supp. 2d 903, 909 (E.D. Mich. 2006)("[b]ecause ... there is no constitutional requirement that a court prepare or consider ... ...
-
Altoonian v. Warren, Civil No. 5:08-CV-11189
...not questioned by a federal habeas court. Seymour v. Walker, 224 F. 3d 542, 552 (6th Cir. 2000); See also Bridinger v. Berghuis, 429 F. Supp. 2d 903, 908-09 (E.D. Mich. 2006). In her second claim, petitiooner contends that the state court erred in allowing Sergeant Wisniewski to give her op......
-
Rice v. Olson
...moot. In any event, there is no federal constitutional right to a pre-sentence investigation and report. See Bridinger v. Berghuis, 429 F. Supp. 2d 903, 909 (E.D. Mich. 2006); Allen v. Stovall, 156 F. Supp. 2d 791, 797 (E.D. Mich. 2001). Therefore, the mere presence of hearsay or inaccurate......
-
Kue v. Birkett
...prior to sentencing. There is no federal constitutional right to a pre-sentence investigation and report. See Bridinger v. Berghuis, 429 F. Supp. 2d 903, 909 (E.D. Mich. 2006); Allen v. Stovall, 156 F. Supp. 2d 791, 797 (E.D. Mich. 2001). Therefore, the mere presence of hearsay or inaccurat......