Corrion v Lafler

Filing 43

ORDER denying 40 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (DTof)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOHN CORRION,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 10-10593
Honorable David M. Lawson

MARY BERGHUIS,
Respondent.
___________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO AMEND/CORRECT OV’S PRV’S
AND THE PSIR AND PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF
The matter is before the Court on the petitioner’s motion to amend/correct OV’s PRV’s and
the PSIR and his request for immediate injunctive relief. The petitioner’s motions request the
ultimate relief sought — the correction of his sentence — because the state court allegedly
misapplied the Michigan sentencing guidelines. A claim that the state trial court incorrectly scored,
calculated, or misapplied the state legislative sentencing guidelines is not cognizable for federal
habeas review because it is based solely on state law. See McPhail v. Renico, 412 F. Supp. 2d 647,
656 (E.D. Mich. 2006) (citing Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67 (1991)). Therefore, a claim that
the trial court misscored offense variables in determining the state sentencing guidelines is not
cognizable on habeas corpus review. Garcia-Dorantes v. Warren, 769 F. Supp. 2d 1092, 1112 (E.D.
Mich. 2011). Because the Court cannot grant the requested relief, it must deny the petitioner’s
motions.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the petitioner’s motion to amend/correct OV’s PRV’s and
the PSIR [dkt. #40] and his request for immediate injunctive relief [dkt. #41] are DENIED.
s/David M. Lawson
DAVID M. LAWSON
United States District Judge
Dated: November 10, 2011
PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first
class U.S. mail on November 10, 2011.
s/Deborah R. Tofil
DEBORAH R. TOFIL

-2-