Williams v. Rivard
Filing
5
OPINION and ORDER Dismissing 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Denying Certificate of Appealability. Signed by District Judge Gerald E. Rosen. (JOwe)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TIMOTHY SUAVE WILLIAMS,
Case Number: 2:14-CV-13849
HONORABLE GERALD E. ROSEN
Petitioner,
v.
STEVEN RIVARD,
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 Timothy Suave
Williams (Petitioner) is a state inmate currently incarcerated at the St. Louis Correctional
Facility in St. Louis, Michigan. He challenges his convictions for three counts of armed
robbery. The claim raised does not warrant habeas corpus relief. Therefore, the petition will
be dismissed.
I.
Petitioner pleaded guilty in Oakland County Circuit Court to three counts of armed
robbery. On January 7, 2013, he was sentenced to 11 to 40 years’ in prison for each
conviction, to be served concurrently.
Petitioner filed an application for leave to appeal in the Michigan Court of Appeals,
challenging the scoring of offense variable 13. The Michigan Court of Appeals denied leave
to appeal. People v. Williams, No. 318540 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2014). Petitioner filed
an application for leave to appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court, which was denied. People
v. Williams, 495 Mich. 1009 (Mich. May 27, 2014).
Petitioner then filed the pending habeas petition. He raises the same claim raised in
state court.
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 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 raise a claim which may establish the
violation of a federal constitutional right, therefore, the petition will be dismissed.
B.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) 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
(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.’” 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). “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
whether the state court’s decision comports with clearly established federal law as
3
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 seeks habeas relief on the ground that offense variable 13 was improperly
scored at 25 points for a pattern of criminal activity arising from one incident.
“‘[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)).
Petitioner’s argument that the state court erred in scoring his sentencing guidelines is based
solely on the state court’s interpretation of state law. It does not implicate any federal rights.
See Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74, 76 (2005) (“[A] state court’s interpretation of state
law, including one announced on direct appeal of the challenged conviction, binds a federal
4
court sitting on habeas review.”); Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 691 (1975) (“[S]tate
courts are the ultimate expositors of state law.”). A claim that offense variables were
improperly scored under state law is not cognizable on habeas corpus review. See Coleman
v. Curtin, 425 F. App’x 483, 484-85 (6th Cir. 2011). Therefore, habeas corpus relief is not
available
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 now requires that the Court “must 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). 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.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)
(citation omitted). In this case, the Court concludes that reasonable jurists would not debate
the conclusion that the petition fails to state a claim upon which habeas corpus relief should
be granted. Therefore, the Court will deny a certificate of appealability. The Court will also
deny petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis, because the appeal would be frivolous. See
Allen v. Stovall, 156 F. Supp. 2d 791, 798 (E.D. Mich. 2001).
V.
5
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas
corpus is DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that leave to appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED.
s/Gerald E. Rosen
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Dated: October 29, 2014
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or
counsel of record on October 29, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Julie Owens
Case Manager, (313) 234-5135
6
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?