Harris v. Mackie

Filing 4

OPINION AND ORDER Denying 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Sterling Harris and Denying Certificate of Appealability. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (JMcC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

STERLING P. HARRIS, JR.,
Case Number: 2:14-CV-11922
HONORABLE SEAN F. COX

Petitioner,
v.
KEN TRIBLEY,
Respondent.
/

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
This is a habeas case filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner Sterling P. Harris,
Jr., is a state inmate currently incarcerated at the Baraga Maximum Correctional Facility
in Baraga, Michigan. He challenges his convictions for second-degree murder, larceny
from a person, and felony firearm. The claim raised does not provide a ground on which
habeas relief may be granted. Therefore, the petition will be dismissed.
I.
Petitioner was charged in Wayne County Circuit Court with first-degree murder,
larceny from a person, and felony firearm, in connection with the shooting death of
Raphael White on September 24, 2004, in Inkster. He pleaded no contest to seconddegree murder, larceny from a person, and felony firearm. On December 19, 2005, he
was sentenced to 20 to 40 years’ in prison for the second-degree murder conviction, 3 to
10 years’ in prison for the larceny from a person conviction, and two years’ in prison for

the felony-firearm conviction.
He filed an application for leave to appeal in the Michigan Court of Appeals. The
Michigan Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal “for lack of merit in the grounds
presented.” People v. Harris, No. 268381 (Mich. Ct. App. June 20, 2006). Petitioner’s
application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court was not accepted for filing
because it was not timely filed.
Petitioner next filed a motion for relief from judgment in the trial court. The trial
court denied the motion. People v. Harris, No. 04-012704 (Wayne County Cir. Ct. Feb.
22, 2013). Petitioner filed applications for leave to appeal the trial court’s decision in the
Michigan Court of Appeals and Michigan Supreme Court. Both state appellate courts
denied leave to appeal. People v. Harris, No. 316076 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 11, 2013);
People v. Harris, 495 Mich. 992 (Apr. 28, 2014).
Petitioner then filed the pending habeas corpus petition. He raises a single claim:
the trial court failed to arraign him within twenty-four hours of his arrest and was
therefore divested of subject matter jurisdiction.
II.
A.
Upon the filing of a habeas corpus petition, the court must promptly examine the
petition to determine “if it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits
annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section
2254 cases. If the court determines that the petitioner is not entitled to relief, the court
2

shall summarily dismiss the petition. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994)
(“Federal courts are authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears
legally insufficient on its face”). The habeas petition does not present grounds which
may establish the violation of a federal constitutional right, therefore, the petition will be
dismissed.
B.
The claims raised are reviewed against the standards established by the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat.
1214 (AEDPA). The AEDPA provides:
An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody
pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to
any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings
unless the adjudication of the claim –
(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 on an unreasonable
determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State
court proceedings.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
“A state court’s decision is ‘contrary to’ . . . clearly established law if it ‘applies a
rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in [Supreme Court cases]’ or if it
‘confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of [the
Supreme] Court and nevertheless arrives at a result different from [this] precedent.’”

3

Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U.S. 12, 15-16 (2003) (per curiam) (quoting Williams v. Taylor,
529 U.S. 362, 405-06 (2000)). “[T]he ‘unreasonable application’ prong of the statute
permits a federal habeas court to ‘grant the writ if the state court identifies the correct
governing legal principle from [the Supreme] Court but unreasonably applies that
principle to the facts’ of petitioner’s case.” Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 520 (2003)
(quoting Williams, 529 U.S. at 413). However, “[i]n order for a federal court find a state
court’s application of [Supreme Court] precedent ‘unreasonable,’ the state court’s
decision must have been more than incorrect or erroneous. The state court’s application
must have been ‘objectively unreasonable.’” Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 520-21 (citations
omitted); see also Williams, 529 U.S. at 409. “A state court’s determination that a claim
lacks merit precludes federal habeas relief so long as ‘fairminded jurists could disagree’
on the correctness of the state court’s decision.” Harrington v. Richter, __ U.S. __, 131
S. Ct. 770, 789 (2011), (quoting Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664 (2004)).
“Section 2254(d) reflects the view that habeas corpus is a guard against extreme
malfunctions in the state criminal justice systems, not a substitute for ordinary error
correction through appeal. . . . As a condition for obtaining habeas corpus from a federal
court, a state prisoner must show that the state court’s ruling on the claim being presented
in federal court was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and
comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.” Id.
at 786-87 (internal quotation omitted).
Section 2254(d)(1) limits a federal habeas court’s review to a determination of
4

whether the state court’s decision comports with clearly established federal law as
determined by the Supreme Court at the time the state court renders its decision. See
Williams, 529 U.S. at 412. Section 2254(d) “does not require citation of [Supreme
Court] cases – indeed, it does not even require awareness of [Supreme Court] cases, so
long as neither the reasoning nor the result of the state-court decision contradicts them.”
Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8 (2002). “[W]hile the principles of “clearly established
law” are to be determined solely by resort to Supreme Court rulings, the decisions of
lower federal courts may be instructive in assessing the reasonableness of a state court’s
resolution of an issue.” Stewart v. Erwin, 503 F.3d 488, 493 (6th Cir. 2007), citing
Williams v. Bowersox, 340 F.3d 667, 671 (8th Cir. 2003); Dickens v. Jones, 203 F. Supp.
2d 354, 359 (E.D. Mich. 2002).
Lastly, a federal habeas court must presume the correctness of state court factual
determinations. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). A petitioner may rebut this presumption
only with clear and convincing evidence. Warren v. Smith, 161 F.3d 358, 360-61 (6th
Cir. 1998).
III.
Petitioner argues that the state court was divested of subject-matter jurisdiction
because it failed to arraign him within twenty-four hours of his arrest as required by
Michigan Court Rule 6.907(A)(1).
“‘[F]ederal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law.’” Estelle v.
McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67 (1991) (quoting Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990)).
5

Habeas review “is limited to deciding whether a conviction violated the Constitution,
laws, or treaties of the United States,” and does not encompass reexamining state-court
determinations of state-law issues. Id. at 68. The determination whether a state court had
jurisdiction under state law is properly made by the state courts, not the federal judiciary.
Wills v. Egeler, 532 F.2d 1058, 1059 (6th Cir. 1976); see also Poe v. Caspari, 39 F.3d
204, 207 (8th Cir. 1994) (“Jurisdiction is no exception to the general rule that federal
courts will not engage in collateral review of state court decisions based on state law: The
adequacy of an information is primarily a question of state law and we are bound by a
state court’s conclusion respecting jurisdiction. . . . This determination of jurisdiction is
binding on this [federal] court.”) (internal quotation omitted). Habeas relief is denied.
IV.
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22 provides that an appeal may not proceed
unless a certificate of appealability (“COA”) is issued under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Rule 11
of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings requires that a court to “issue or deny a
certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.”
A COA may be issued “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The substantial showing
threshold is satisfied when a petitioner demonstrates “that reasonable jurists would find
the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
In this case, the Court concludes that reasonable jurists would not debate the
6

conclusion that the petition does not state a claim upon which habeas relief may be
granted. Therefore, the Court denies a certificate of appealability.
V.
For the reasons stated, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and a certificate of
appealability are DENIED.

Dated: July 8, 2014

S/ Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
U. S. District Judge

I hereby certify that on July 8, 2014, the foregoing document was served on counsel of
record via electronic means and upon Sterling Harris, Jr., via First Class mail at the
address below:
Sterling Harris, Jr. 530643
Baraga Maximum Correctional Facility
13924 Wadaga Road
Baraga, MI 49908
S/ J. McCoy
Case Manager

7