Davis v. Warren
ORDER Denying Certificate of Appealability - Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (DTof)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
JAKESHA DATRICE DAVIS,
Case Number 10-12190
Honorable David M. Lawson
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Petitioner Jakesha Datrice Davis pleaded guilty to armed robbery under an agreement that
she receive an indeterminate sentence no greater than three to ten years in prison. She filed a
petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 because she believed that her sentencing
guidelines were scored incorrectly, the sentencing judge relied on inaccurate information that she
never admitted in her plea colloquy, and her sentence was unconstitutional. The Court determined
that the petitioner was not entitled to relief and denied her petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts, which was amended as of December 1, 2009:
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
Rule 11(a), 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 denied relief on the petitioner’s claim that the trial court mis-scored her sentencing
guidelines because that alleged error, which is a matter of state law, does not form the basis of a
cognizable claim for habeas relief. Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37, 41 (1984); Howard v. White, 76
F. App’x 52, 53 (6th Cir. 2003) (“A state court’s alleged misinterpretation of state sentencing
guidelines and crediting statutes is a matter of state concern only.”). The Court does not believe that
reasonable jurists could debate the propriety of the Court’s decision. The Court denied the
petitioner’s Apprendi claim because the petitioner’s sentence fell within the statutorily-authorized
maximum penalty of life imprisonment, which was not enhanced by judicial factfinding. Chontos
v. Berghuis, 585 F.3d 1000, 1002 (6th Cir. 2009); see also Montes v. Trombley, 599 F.3d 490, 495
(6th Cir. 2010). The Court does not believe that reasonable jurists would disagree with the Court’s
decision. Finally, the Court denied the petitioner’s claim that the trial court relied on materially false
information when imposing her sentence because the petitioner did not show the trial court relied
on materially false information and, even if it did, the petitioner and her counsel had an opportunity
to correct the alleged misinformation. Draughn v Jabe, 803 F. Supp. 70, 80 (E.D. Mich. 1992)
(citing Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736, 741 (1948)). The Court believes that reasonable jurists
would not debate this point.
The Court concludes that the petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing that she was
denied her constitutional rights and that reasonable jurists could not debate the correctness of the
Court’s decision. Therefore, the Court 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: July 20, 2012
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 July 20, 2012.
s/Deborah R. Tofil
DEBORAH R. TOFIL
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?