Belton v. Cambell

Filing 6

ORDER DISMISSING THE PETITION AND DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

GREGORY BELTON-BEY,
Petitioner,

Case No. 16-CV-13731

v.
SHERMAN CAMPBELL,

HON. AVERN COHN

Respondent.
_____________________________/
ORDER DISMISSING THE PETITION
AND DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
I. Introduction
This is a habeas case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner Gregory Belton-Bey,
(Petitioner), is a state inmate serving a nonparolable life sentence for four counts of
first-degree murder, M.C.L. § 750.316, and a life sentence for one count of assault with
intent to commit murder, M.C.L § 750.83. In his pro se petition, Petitioner challenges
his 1983 conviction on the grounds that he was denied his right to counsel at the initial
arraignment on the warrant. As will be explained, Petitioner fails to state a claim for
habeas relief. Accordingly, the petition will be dismissed.
II. Background
Petitioner was arraigned on the above charges before a state magistrate judge in
the 41B District Court in Clinton Township, Michigan. Petitioner says that he did not
have an attorney at his initial arraignment on the warrant. Petitioner was later
convicted after a bench trial in Macomb County Circuit Court in 1982 and sentenced in
1

1983.
III. Legal Standard
A district court must review a petition for habeas relief to determine whether “it
plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, RULES GOVERNING § 2254
CASES; see also 28 U.S.C. § 2243. If a court determines that the petitioner is not
entitled to relief, the petition must be summarily dismissed. Id., see also Allen v. Perini,
424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir. 1970) (district court has the duty to “screen out” petitions
that lack merit on their face).
IV. Discussion
Petitioner claims that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel
because he was not represented by an attorney at his initial arraignment on the warrant
before the state magistrate judge. “It is beyond dispute that ‘[t]he Sixth Amendment
safeguards to an accused who faces incarceration the right to counsel at all critical
stages of the criminal process.’” Marshall v. Rodgers, 133 S.Ct. 1446, 1449 (2013)(per
curiam)(quoting Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77, 80–81 (2004)). The right to counsel applies
to “pretrial critical stages that are part of the whole course of a criminal proceeding[,].”
Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376, 1385 (2012). The right to counsel also includes “the
first appearance before a judicial officer at which a defendant is told of the formal
accusation against him and restrictions are imposed on his liberty.” Rothgery v.
Gillespie Cnty., Tex., 554 U.S. 191, 194 (2008).
However, the Supreme Court held that the denial of counsel at an arraignment
requires automatic reversal, without any harmless-error analysis, in only two situations:
2

(1) when defenses not pled at arraignment were irretrievably lost, Hamilton v. Alabama,
368 U.S. 52, 53–54 (1961); and/or (2) when a full admission of guilt entered at an
arraignment without counsel was later used against the defendant at trial, despite
subsequent withdrawal. White v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 59, 60(1963)(per curiam).
Petitioner has not alleged either circumstance was present in his case. Thus, even
assuming that Petitioner did not have counsel at his arraignment, he has not alleged
that he was prejudiced in a way that would entitled him to habeas relief. Thus, the
petition fails to state a claim for habeas relief.
V. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the petition is DISMISSED for failure to state a
plausible claim for habeas relief. Furthermore, reasonable jurists would not debate the
court’s assessment of petitioner’s claim, nor conclude that the issue deserves
encouragement to proceed further. The court therefore DENIES a certificate of
appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).1 See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000).
SO ORDERED.
S/Avern Cohn
AVERN COHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: October 25, 2016
Detroit, Michigan

1

“The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it
enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule
11(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.
3