Snyder v. Raplje

Filing 11

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S 3 Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Signed by District Judge Gerald E. Rosen. (RGun)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

AARON SNYDER,
Case No. 11-11941
Petitioner,
HONORABLE GERALD E. ROSEN
v.
LLOYD RAPLJE,
Respondent.
/

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
This is a habeas case filed by a Michigan state prisoner under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner
Aaron Snyder is serving a sentence of mandatory life imprisonment and lifetime electronic
monitoring imposed for his conviction for first degree criminal sexual conduct, following a guilty
plea. Petitioner asserts that this sentence violates his federal and state constitutional rights. This
matter comes before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel.
There is no constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in a habeas proceeding. See
Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987) ("[o]ur cases establish that the right to appointed
counsel extends to the first appeal of right, and no further"); Cobas v. Burgess, 306 F.3d 441, 444
(6th Cir. 2002) (“a petitioner does not have a right to assistance of counsel on a habeas appeal”)
(citing McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1987)). Appointment of counsel in a habeas
proceeding is mandatory only if the district court determines that an evidentiary hearing is required.
Lemeshko v. Wrona, 325 F. Supp. 2d 778, 787 (E.D. Mich. 2004); see Rule 8(c), Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Otherwise, the matter lies within the
discretion of the court. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 638 (6th Cir. 1986). An indigent habeas
petitioner may obtain representation at any stage of the case "[w]henever the United States

magistrate or the court determines that the interests of justice so require." 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)
(2)(B).
The Court concludes after careful consideration that the interests of justice do not require
appointment of counsel at this time. The issues raised by Petitioner were fully and carefully
addressed in Petitioner’s briefs filed in support of his direct appeal before both the Michigan Court
of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court. Petitioner’s habeas claims raise purely legal issues,
and the record appears to be fully sufficient for the Court to understand and address the issues raised
in the petition. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion without prejudice. Petitioner’s motion will
be reconsidered if, after the Court reviews the responsive pleadings and the record in more detail,
the Court determines that appointment of counsel is necessary. No further motions need to be filed
with respect to this issue.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner’s “Motion for Appointment of Counsel” [Dkt.
3] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

s/Gerald E. Rosen
GERALD E. ROSEN
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Dated: February 1, 2012
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on
February 1, 2012, by electronic mail and upon Aaron Snyder, #243017, Saginaw Correctional
Facility, 9625 Pierce Road, Freeland, MI 48623 by ordinary mail.
s/Ruth A. Gunther
Case Manager

2