Chorazyczewski v. Campbell et al

Filing 9

SECOND ORDER Requiring Petitioner's Counsel to Clarify the Issues Being Raised in the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (Sandusky, K)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KEVIN CHORAZYCZEWSKI,
Petitioner,

Case No. 2:15-CV-12754
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
SHERMAN CAMPBELL,
Respondent.
_______________________________________/
SECOND ORDER REQUIRING PETITIONER’S COUNSEL TO CLARIFY
THE ISSUES BEING RAISED IN THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
Kevin Chorazyczewski, (the “Petitioner”), seeks the issuance of a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In his application, filed by attorney
Frank G. Becker, Petitioner challenges his conviction for unarmed robbery,
M.C.L.A. § 750.530; and being a third felony habitual offender, M.C.L.A. § 769.11.
On February 2, 2017, this Court issued an opinion and order (the “Order for
Clarification”) requiring his attorney to clarify the issues being raised in the petition
for writ of habeas corpus. (See ECF #6.)
In response to the Order for Clarification, Petitioner’s counsel filed a
“Statement Identifying Claims Raised in Petition” (the “First Clarification
Statement”). (See ECF #7.) In that statement, Petitioner’s counsel indicates he is
raising two claims:

1

I.

INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

II.

WAS THERE A VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSES OF THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENTS “[PROTECT] THE ACCUSED AGAINST
CONVICTION EXCEPT UPON PROOF BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT OF EVERY FACT NECESSARY TO
CONSTITUTE THE CRIME WITH WHICH HE IS CHARGED
ESPECIALLY AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE FAILURE TO
INSTRUCT THE JURY AS TO BASIC AND CRUCIAL
ISSUES SUCH AS THE USE OF FORCE, THE INITIATION
OF FORCE, LEGALITY OF AN UNANNOUNCED
CITIZEN’S AND SELF DEFENSE.

This identification of claims is at too high a level of generality. The First
Clarification Statement does not specify each and every basis on which Petitioner
claims that counsel was ineffective. It also does not state whether Petitioner’s due
process claim is based on any contention beyond the jury instruction issues identified
above, nor does it specify which jury instructions Petitioner is challenging and/or
which jury instructions should have been given.
Thus, the First Clarification Statement is not a sufficient response to the Order
for Clarification. Petitioner’s counsel is ORDERED to file within fourteen (14)
days of this order a second statement that:
(1) Specifies in detail each and every manner in which Petitioner alleges that
his counsel’s performance was deficient or ineffective;
(2) For each deficiency identified in response to (1), states whether the
deficiency applies to Petitioner’s trial counsel, appellate counsel, or both;

2

(3) Identifies the specific jury instructions that Petitioner believes should have
been given at trial, but were not;
(4) Specifies any additional grounds (other than deficient jury instructions)
for Petitioner’s due process claim.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: February 21, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on February 21, 2017, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Karri Sandusky (in the absence of Holly Monda)
Case Manager
[phone]

3