Corrion v Lafler

Filing 51

ORDER Denying Certificate of Appealability. Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (DTof)

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

Case Number 10-10593
Honorable David M. Lawson

BRIAN LAFLER,
Respondent.
__________________________/
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
The petitioner, John Corrion, presently confined at the Kinross Correctional Facility in
Kincheloe, Michigan, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. The petitioner was convicted on a guilty plea in the Livingston County Circuit Court for
assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder and sentenced to a term of imprisonment
of six to ten years. The habeas petition raises eleven claims including that the guilty plea was
involuntary, petitioner was denied the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and the right to
counsel on appeal, the prosecutor committed misconduct by relying on false witness testimony, the
petitioner was denied due process at sentencing, and petitioner’s resentencing after he violated the
terms of his probation subjected him to double jeopardy.
Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts:
The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a
final order adverse to the applicant. . . . If the court issues a certificate, the court must
state the specific issue or issues that satisfy the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2). If the court denies a certificate, a party may not appeal the denial but
may seek a certificate from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 22.

1

Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.
A certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing
of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Courts must either issue a certificate
of appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or provide reasons why such
a certificate should not issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); In re Certificates of
Appealability, 106 F.3d 1306, 1307 (6th Cir. 1997). To receive a certificate of appealability, “a
petitioner must show that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the
petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate
to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003)
(internal quotes and citations omitted).
The Court now concludes that the petitioner has failed to show that any decision of a state
court relating to his claims was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established
federal law, and that reasonable jurists could not debate the Court’s conclusions as to any of the
issues that the petitioner raises. The Court therefore will deny a certificate of appealability.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
s/David M. Lawson
DAVID M. LAWSON
United States District Judge
Dated: April 11, 2013
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 April 11, 2013.
s/Deborah R. Tofil
DEBORAH R. TOFIL

2