Stewart v. MaCauley
Decision Date | 07 April 2020 |
Docket Number | Case No. 1:20-cv-68 |
Parties | VALENTINO LAHRON STEWART, Petitioner, v. MATT MACAULEY, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
Honorable Robert J. Jonker
This is a habeas corpus action brought by a state prisoner under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Promptly after the filing of a petition for habeas corpus, the Court must undertake a preliminary review of the petition to determine whether "it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court." Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; see 28 U.S.C. § 2243. If so, the petition must be summarily dismissed. Rule 4; see Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir. 1970) ( ). A dismissal under Rule 4 includes those petitions which raise legally frivolous claims, as well as those containing factual allegations that are palpably incredible or false. Carson v. Burke, 178 F.3d 434, 436-37 (6th Cir. 1999). After undertaking the review required by Rule 4, the Court concludes that the petition must be dismissed because it fails to raise a meritorious federal claim.
Petitioner Valentino Lahron Stewart is incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections at the Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility (IBC) in Ionia, Ionia County, Michigan. Following a jury trial in the Ingham County Circuit Court, Petitioner was convicted of second-degree murder, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.317, assault with intent to murder (AWIM), Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.83, carrying a concealed weapon (CCW), Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.227, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony firearm), Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.227b. On September 3, 2014, the court sentenced Petitioner to concurrent prison terms of 300 to 600 months on the murder conviction, 200 to 400 months on the AWIM conviction, and 24 to 60 months on the CCW conviction, to be served consecutively to a 2-year prison term for the felony-firearm conviction.
On January 21, 2020, Petitioner timely filed his habeas corpus petition. Under Sixth Circuit precedent, the application is deemed filed when handed to prison authorities for mailing to the federal court. Cook v. Stegall, 295 F.3d 517, 521 (6th Cir. 2002). Petitioner signed his application on January 21, 2020. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.46.) The petition was received by the Court on January 27, 2020. For purposes of this opinion, the Court has given Petitioner the benefit of the earliest possible filing date. See Brand v. Motley, 526 F.3d 921, 925 (6th Cir. 2008) ( )(citing Goins v. Saunders, 206 F. App'x 497, 498 n.1 (6th Cir. 2006)).
The petition raises three grounds for relief, as follows:
(Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.2, 6, 25, 30, 35.)
The facts underlying Petitioner's conviction, as taken from the Michigan Court of Appeals opinion, are as follows:
People v. Stewart (Stewart I), No. 323969, 2016 WL 683117, at *1-2 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 18, 2016). The court of appeals' summary is consistent with the evidence outlined in Petitioner's habeas application, though Petitioner's application contains additional details. (ECF No. 1, PageID.7-23.)
After hearing the evidence, the jury acquitted Petitioner of first-degree murder, but convicted him of second-degree murder, AWIM, CCW, and felony firearm. Petitioner appealed his convictions and sentences to the Michigan Court of Appeals, raising the same three issues he presents in his habeas petition, together with a claim raised in his pro per supplemental brief on appeal concerning the failure to give a voluntary-manslaughter instruction and a supplemental sentencing issue under People v. Lockridge, 870 N.W.2d 502. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions, but remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether the court's sentence based on judge-found facts would have been different if the guidelines were discretionary rather than mandatory and, if so, to resentence Petitioner. Stewart I, 2016 WL 682982, at *6-7.
Petitioner sought leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, raising the same issues presented to the court of appeals. In an order issued on January 31, 2017, the supreme court denied leave to appeal.
On remand, the trial court concluded that it would have imposed the same sentence in the absence of the unconstitutional restraint on its discretion. Petitioner appealed the trial court's refusal to resentence him to the Michigan Court of Appeals. The court of appeals affirmed his sentence in an unpublished opinion issued on May 8, 2018. People v. Stewart (Stewart II), No. 338726, 2018 WL 2121690 . Petitioner sought leave to appeal thedenial of resentencing to the Michigan Supreme Court. The supreme court denied leave to appeal on October 30, 2018.
This action is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (AEDPA). The AEDPA "prevents federal habeas 'retrials'" and ensures that state court convictions are given effect to the extent possible under the law. Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 693-94 (2002). An application for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person who is incarcerated pursuant to a state conviction cannot be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court unless the adjudication: "(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 upon an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). This standard is "intentionally difficult to meet." Woods v. Donald, 575 U.S. 312, 316 (2015) (internal quotation omitted).
The AEDPA limits the source of law to cases decided by the United States Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). This Court may consider only the holdings, and not the dicta, of the Supreme Court. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412 (2000); Bailey v. Mitchell, 271 F.3d 652, 655 (6th Cir. 2001). In determining whether federal law is clearly established, the Court may not consider the decisions of lower federal courts. Lopez v. Smith, 574 U.S. 1, 4 (2014); Marshall v. Rodgers, 569 U.S. 58, 64 (2013); Parker v. Matthews, 567 U.S. 37, 48-49 (2012); Williams, 529 U.S. at 381-82; Miller v. Straub, 299 F.3d 570, 578-79 (6th Cir. 2002). Moreover, "clearly established Federal law" does not include decisions of the Supreme Court announced after the last adjudication of the merits in state court. Greene v. Fisher, 565 U.S. 34, 37-38 (201...
To continue reading
Request your trial