Lewis v. Hoffner
Filing
15
OPINION and ORDER granting respondent's 12 MOTION to Dismiss , denying petitioner's 8 MOTION for Order to Show Cause; denying petitioner's motion for relief from judgment 9 , closing case and denying a certificate of appealability. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CBet)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CHARLES LEWIS,
Petitioner,
CASE NO. 2:15-cv-10766
HONORABLE NANCY G. EDMUNDS
v.
BONITA HOFFNER,
Respondent.
_________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF NO. 12),
DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE (ECF NO. 8),
DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 9),
CLOSING THIS CASE, AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
I. Introduction
This matter is pending before the Court on petitioner Charles Lewis’ habeas
corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and respondent Bonita Hoffner’s motion to
dismiss the petition. Also pending before the Court are Petitioner’s motion to show
cause and his second motion for relief from judgment. Petitioner is challenging his 1977
conviction and life sentence for first-degree murder. He alleges in his habeas petition
that his sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for a murder that
was committed when he was seventeen years old is cruel and unusual punishment
under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Petitioner further
alleges in a letter to the Court filed on August 10, 2015, and in two motions filed on
February 11, 2016, that the state court dismissed his murder case in the year 2000 and
that he is entitled to immediate release from custody. Respondent argues in her motion
to dismiss the habeas petition that Petitioner did not exhaust state remedies for his
sentencing claim and that Petitioner’s challenge to his conviction is time-barred,
unauthorized, and incredible.
The Michigan Supreme Court recently vacated Petitioner’s sentence and
remanded his case to the state trial court for re-sentencing.
Thus, Petitioner’s
sentencing claim is moot. His challenge to the underlying murder conviction lacks merit.
Accordingly, the habeas petition will be dismissed, and Petitioner’s motions will be
denied.
II. Background
In 1977, a jury in the former Detroit Recorder’s Court found Petitioner guilty of
first-degree murder, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.316. The conviction arose from the fatal
shooting of an off-duty police officer in Detroit.
On July 27, 1977, the trial court
sentenced Petitioner to mandatory life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Petitioner’s conviction, and the Michigan
Supreme Court denied leave to appeal.
Petitioner filed multiple post-conviction motions and appeals without success,
and in 1987, he challenged his murder conviction in a federal habeas corpus petition,
which the district court denied. On appeal from the district court’s decision, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit remanded the case to the district court for
(1) further review of Petitioner’s claim that trial counsel failed to investigate potential
alibi witnesses and (2) a determination of whether Petitioner requested a transcript of
his state evidentiary hearing and, if so, whether one was provided. The Sixth Circuit
2
affirmed the district court’s order in all other respects. See Lewis v. Jabe, No. 88-1522,
1989 WL 145895, at *7-*8 (6th Cir. Dec. 4, 1989). On remand, former United States
District Judge Richard F. Suhrheinrich ordered transcripts from the state court, held an
evidentiary hearing, and then denied habeas corpus relief on Petitioner’s claim
regarding trial counsel. See Lewis v. Jabe, No. 87-72050 (E.D. Mich. May 3, 1990, May
30, 1990, and June 28, 1990).
Petitioner subsequently filed several post-judgment
motions in the 1987 habeas case, but all the motions were denied.
At some point, Petitioner returned to state court and filed an application for
satisfaction of judgment. In support of his application, Petitioner attached an order that
indicated his first-degree murder conviction and life sentence were dismissed on April 3,
2000 by then-Wayne County Circuit Judge Gershwin A. Drain. Judge Drain denied the
application for satisfaction of judgment after determining that his signature on the order
submitted by Petitioner was a forgery and that a corresponding entry on the court’s
register of actions also was fraudulent. See Order Denying Defendant’s Application for
Satisfaction of Judgment and Order to Show Cause (Wayne Cty. Cir. Ct. Jan. 16, 2012).
The Michigan Court of Appeals denied Petitioner’s delayed application for leave to
appeal Judge Drain’s decision “for lack of merit.” See People v. Lewis, No. 308585
(Mich. Ct. App. Sept. 14, 2012). Petitioner did not appeal that decision to the Michigan
Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, on June 25, 2012, the United States Supreme Court issued its
decision in Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), holding “that mandatory life
without parole for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes violates the
3
Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on ‘cruel and unusual punishments.’ ” Id. at 2460.
Petitioner subsequently challenged his life sentence in a state-court motion for relief
from judgment.
The state trial court granted Petitioner’s motion and ordered re-
sentencing in accordance with Miller.
The Michigan Court of Appeals, however,
reversed the trial court’s decision, see People v. Lewis, No. 315520 (Mich. Ct. App.
Aug. 29, 2013), and on December 30, 2014, the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave
to appeal because it was not persuaded to review the issue. See People v. Lewis, 857
N.W.2d 24 (Mich. 2014).
Petitioner appealed the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision to the United States
Supreme Court, and while his petition for a writ of certiorari was pending there, he
commenced this action through counsel. His sole habeas claim is that his life sentence
without the possibility of parole for a crime that occurred when he was a juvenile is cruel
and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 1.)
Respondent moved to transfer Petitioner’s habeas petition to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit as a second or successive petition under 28
U.S.C. § 2244(b). (ECF No. 4.) Petitioner’s attorney did not answer the State’s motion
and, instead, moved to withdraw as counsel for Petitioner on the basis of a breakdown
in the relationship. (ECF No. 5.) In an opinion and order dated October 19, 2015, the
Court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and denied Respondent’s motion to transfer
the habeas petition to the Sixth Circuit as a second or successive petition. The Court
then stayed this case in anticipation of a ruling from the Supreme Court on the
retroactivity of Miller. (ECF No. 6.)
4
On January 25, 2016, the Supreme Court held that Miller is retroactive to
offenders who committed their crimes as juveniles and whose convictions and
sentences were final when Miller was decided. See Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.
Ct. 718, 734 (2016). Petitioner then filed three motions in this case. In a purported
motion for relief from judgment (ECF No. 7), Petitioner asked the Court to lift its stay. In
a motion to show cause (ECF No. 8), Petitioner asked the Court to expand the record
and to release him from custody on the basis that Judge Drain dismissed his conviction
on April 3, 2000. Finally, in a second motion for relief from judgment (ECF No. 9),
Petitioner reiterated that he was incarcerated without a conviction or sentence because
the state trial court dismissed his conviction on April 3, 2000.
On March 7, 2016, while Petitioner’s three motions remained pending in this
Court, the Supreme Court granted Petitioner’s application for a writ of certiorari and
vacated the Michigan Supreme Court’s last judgment in his case. The Supreme Court
then remanded Petitioner’s case to the Michigan Supreme Court for further
consideration in light of Montgomery. See Lewis v. Michigan, 136 S. Ct. 1357 (2016).
On April 26, 2016, this Court granted Petitioner’s request to lift the stay and
ordered Respondent to address Petitioner’s other motions and his habeas claim that his
mandatory life sentence was cruel and unusual punishment. (ECF No. 11.) On May 4,
2016, Respondent moved to dismiss the habeas petition on the ground that Petitioner
had not fully exhausted his state remedies because his case was still pending in the
Michigan Supreme Court. On May 24, 2016, however, the Michigan Supreme Court
vacated Petitioner’s sentence for first-degree murder and remanded his case to the
5
Wayne County Circuit Court for re-sentencing in light of Miller and Montgomery. The
matter currently is pending in Wayne County Circuit Court, and a hearing is scheduled
for August 5, 2016. See www.3rdcc.org, case number 76-005890-01-FC.
III. Discussion
The only relief that Petitioner seeks in his habeas corpus petition is an order
vacating his life sentence and directing the state trial court to re-sentence him. See Pet.
for Writ of Habeas Corpus, at 5. On May 24, 2016, the Michigan Supreme Court did
just that: the state supreme court vacated Petitioner’s life sentence for first-degree
murder and remanded Petitioner’s case to the trial court for re-sentencing on the murder
conviction. See People v. Lewis, 878 N.W.2d 479. Thus, Petitioner’s sentencing claim
is moot, as the state court has granted the relief he seeks here. Friedman’s, Inc. v.
Dunlap, 290 F.3d 191, 197 (4th Cir. 2002) (citing Simpson v. Camper, 974 F.2d 1030,
1031 (8th Cir. 1992), and New York v. Seneci, 817 F.2d 1015, 1017 (2d Cir. 1987));
Cline v. Procunier, 328 F. Supp. 205, 207 (C.D. Ca. 1971); Stratmoen v. Ward, 248 F.
App’x
17,
21
(10th
Cir.
2007).
Petitioner’s challenge to his murder conviction is not moot because the Michigan
Supreme Court left the murder conviction intact when it vacated Petitioner’s life
sentence for the murder.
Nevertheless, the record does not support Petitioner’s
contention that he is entitled to immediate release from custody on the basis of a statecourt order dismissing his murder case. When Petitioner raised this issue in state court,
then-Wayne County Circuit Judge Gershwin A. Drain rejected the claim in a written
decision dated January 16, 2012. Judge Drain stated that he had no recollection of
6
signing the order of dismissal and that he did not recall handling Petitioner’s motion for
relief from judgment. Judge Drain also pointed out that his name does not appear in
Petitioner’s file and that he did not succeed the judge who presided over Petitioner’s
trial. Judge Drain stated that, for Petitioner to wait twelve years to be released from
custody pursuant to an order supposedly signed in 2000 “doesn’t add up.” Judge Drain
concluded that the signed order which Petitioner submitted was a forgery and that the
register of actions which reflected the order also was fraudulent. The Michigan Court of
Appeals denied Petitioner’s appeal from Judge Drain’s decision “for lack of merit.”
The state-court orders rejecting Petitioner’s challenge to his murder conviction
were based on reasonable “determination[s] of the facts in light of the evidence
presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). Petitioner therefore
has no right to relief on the basis of his challenge to the murder conviction.
IV. Conclusion and Order
For the reasons given above, Petitioner’s sentencing claim is moot, and the
state-court orders on his claim about the underlying murder conviction were based on
reasonable determinations of the facts. Accordingly, it is ordered that:
• Respondent’s motion to dismiss the habeas petition (ECF No. 12) is granted,
and the habeas petition (ECF No. 1) is dismissed;
• Petitioner’s motion to show cause why the record should not be expanded and
why he should not be released from custody (ECF No. 8) is denied;
• Petitioner’s second motion for relief from judgment (ECF No. 9) is denied;
7
• this case is closed, and a certificate of appealability is denied because
reasonable jurists would not disagree with the Court’s resolution of Petitioner’s claims,
nor conclude that the issues presented to the Court deserve encouragement to proceed
further. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003).
Dated: August 2, 2016
s/ Nancy G. Edmunds
NANCY G. EDMUNDS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to their respective email or First Class
U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on 8/2/16 August 2, 2016.
s/Carol J Bethel
CAROL J BETHEL
Case Manager
8
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?