Aldridge v. Morrison

Filing 15

OPINION and ORDER Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 . Signed by District Judge Laurie J. Michelson. (EPar)

Case 2:20-cv-10886-LJM-APP ECF No. 15, PageID.857 Filed 03/29/23 Page 1 of 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DARIN REY ALDRIDGE,
Petitioner,

Case No. 20-10886
Honorable Laurie J. Michelson

v.
NOAH NAGY, Warden,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS [1]
Darin Rey Aldridge is serving a six-to-20-year prison sentence after pleading
no contest in Michigan state court to domestic violence and assault by strangulation.
He filed a pro se habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition claims
that the state trial court erred by refusing to allow Aldridge to withdraw his plea
before sentencing and that Aldridge’s trial counsel was ineffective.
During its initial review of the case, the Court determined that Aldridge failed
to properly raise his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim in the Michigan Court of
Appeals and, thus, the claim was not exhausted. The Court informed Aldridge that it
planned to dismiss his habeas petition without prejudice unless he notified the Court
before August 4, 2020, that he wished to voluntarily dismiss his unexhausted claim
and proceed with his sole exhausted claim. (ECF No. 3, PageID.55–56.) The Court
also informed Aldridge of his options, including to request a stay or to have his
petition dismissed without prejudice so that he may exhaust his unexhausted claim

Case 2:20-cv-10886-LJM-APP ECF No. 15, PageID.858 Filed 03/29/23 Page 2 of 12

in state court. Id. Aldridge responded by requesting that the Court reconsider its
ruling on exhaustion or, in the alternative, allow him to voluntarily dismiss his
unexhausted claim. (ECF No. 4, PageID.59.) The Court declined to reconsider its
decision and dismissed the claim. (ECF No. 5.)
Following the Court’s dismissal of Aldridge’s unexhausted ineffectiveassistance-of-counsel claim, the Warden filed an answer contending that Aldridge’s
habeas petition should be denied as meritless. (ECF No. 9.) In his reply, Aldridge
appears to concede that his remaining claim lacks merit, and he now asks the Court
to dismiss his habeas petition without prejudice so that he may return to state court
to exhaust his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. (ECF No. 11, PageID.732.)
Aldridge cannot turn back the clock now. He had ample opportunity earlier in
this case to request a dismissal without prejudice or a stay of his habeas petition so
that he could exhaust his claim in state court. Indeed, the Court explicitly informed
him of this option. (ECF No. 3). Instead, Aldridge chose to proceed with his exhausted
claim and waited until after the Warden responded to ask for dismissal of his petition.
And he provides no justification for his delayed request other than the apparent
realization that his exhausted claim is meritless. So, the Court denies Aldridge’s
request to dismiss his habeas petition and will address the merits of the exhausted
claim.
And for the reasons that follow, the Court will deny Aldridge’s habeas petition.

2

Case 2:20-cv-10886-LJM-APP ECF No. 15, PageID.859 Filed 03/29/23 Page 3 of 12

I.
On October 25, 2018, Aldridge pled no contest in Macomb County Circuit Court
to one count of domestic violence, third offense, in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws
§ 750.81(4), and one count of assault by strangulation, in violation of Mich. Comp.
Laws § 750.84(1)(b). (ECF No. 1, PageID.1, 22.) In what is known as a Cobbs
agreement, the trial court agreed to cap Aldridge’s minimum sentence at the bottom
third of his minimum guidelines range.1 (ECF No. 10-13, PageID.309, 313, 319.)
Although the parties stated that they discussed a preliminary guidelines range, they
did not place any specific range on the record. (Id. at PageID.307–308.) Aldridge
agreed that his no-contest plea was not made in exchange for any promises other than
the agreement that his sentence be capped per Cobbs. (Id. at PageID.316.)
The trial court ultimately calculated Aldridge’s minimum guidelines range to
be 38 to 152 months. (ECF No. 1, PageID.22, 44.) Before Aldridge was sentenced, he
moved to withdraw his plea, claiming that he was promised a minimum guidelines
range of 10 to 46 months. (ECF No. 10-13, PageID.334.) The trial court denied
Aldridge’s request and sentenced Aldridge as a fourth habitual offender to two
concurrent terms of 72 to 240 months (six to twenty years) in prison. (Id. at
PageID.341.)
In an application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals, Aldridge
argued that the trial court abused its discretion and committed clear error by denying
his request to withdraw his plea before sentencing. (ECF No. 1, PageID.2.) The Court

1

See People v. Cobbs, 505 N.W.2d 208 (Mich. 1993).
3

Case 2:20-cv-10886-LJM-APP ECF No. 15, PageID.860 Filed 03/29/23 Page 4 of 12

of Appeals denied Aldridge’s application for lack of merit in the grounds presented.
See People v. Aldridge, No. 348948 (Mich. Ct. App. June 25, 2019), available at (ECF
No. 1, PageID.47.)
In an application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, Aldridge
raised the same claim that he had presented to the Michigan Court of Appeals. He
also raised a new ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim based on his lawyer’s advice
to plead no contest to two offenses that allegedly arose from a single act. (ECF No. 1,
PageID.2–3.) The Michigan Supreme Court granted Aldridge’s “motion to add [an]
additional issue,” but denied leave to appeal because it was not persuaded that the
questions Aldridge presented warranted review. See People v. Aldridge, 937 N.W.2d
652 (Mich. 2020).
Aldridge then came to federal court. He raised two grounds for relief in his
habeas petition: (1) the trial court abused its discretion and committed clear error in
denying Aldridge’s motion to withdraw his plea before sentencing; and (2) his lawyer’s
advice to plead nolo contendere to two offenses arising from a single act violates the
Double Jeopardy Clause and constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. (ECF No.
1, at PageID.17.)
As discussed, the Court dismissed the second claim on exhaustion grounds.
(ECF No. 5.) The Warden contests the remaining claim on the merits. (ECF No. 9.)
II.
Before addressing the merits of Aldridge’s exhausted claim, some background
on the standard.

4

Case 2:20-cv-10886-LJM-APP ECF No. 15, PageID.861 Filed 03/29/23 Page 5 of 12

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) (and 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 in particular) “confirm[s] that state courts are the principal forum for asserting
constitutional challenges to state convictions.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86,
103 (2011); see also Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 182 (2011). To obtain relief in
federal court, habeas petitioners who challenge “a matter ‘adjudicated on the merits
in State court’ [must] show that the relevant state court ‘decision’ (1) ‘was contrary
to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law,’ or (2)
‘was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence
presented in the State court proceedings.’” Wilson v. Sellers, 138 S. Ct. 1188, 1191
(2018) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)). “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, 562 U.S. at 101. And a state
court’s factual determinations are presumed correct on federal habeas review, 28
U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1), and review is “limited to the record that was before the state
court.” Pinholster, 563 U.S. at 181. But if the state courts did not adjudicate a claim
“on the merits,” “AEDPA . . . does not apply and [this Court] will review the claim de
novo.” Bies v. Sheldon, 775 F.3d 386, 395 (6th Cir. 2014).
As a threshold matter, the Court must determine if the state courts
adjudicated Aldridge’s claim on the merits. The Michigan Court of Appeals denied
Aldridge leave to appeal for lack of merit in the grounds presented. (ECF No. 1,
PageID.47.) Because Supreme Court precedent makes clear that this type of one-

5

Case 2:20-cv-10886-LJM-APP ECF No. 15, PageID.862 Filed 03/29/23 Page 6 of 12

sentence summary order should be presumed to be an adjudication on the merits,
AEDPA’s deferential standard of review applies. See Harrington, 562 U.S. at 99–100.
III.
Aldridge argues that the trial court erred by denying his request to withdraw
his no-contest plea before sentencing because he was allegedly promised a sentencing
guidelines range that was lower than the range ultimately calculated by the trial
court. (ECF No. 1, PageID.28.)
There is “no federal due process right to seek to withdraw [a] guilty plea.”
Hynes v. Birkett, 526 F. App’x 515, 521 (6th Cir. 2013). Unless a petitioner’s nocontest plea “violated a clearly-established constitutional right, whether to allow the
withdrawal of a criminal defendant’s no-contest [plea] is discretionary with the
[S]tate trial court.” Shanks v. Wolfenbarger, 387 F. Supp. 2d 740, 748 (E.D. Mich.
2005). And “[i]t is well-settled that post-sentencing buyer’s remorse is not a valid
basis” to set aside an otherwise valid no-contest plea. Meek v. Bergh, 526 F. App’x
530, 536 (6th Cir. 2013) (cleaned up). Thus, the first question before the Court is
whether Aldridge’s plea agreement was constitutionally valid.
A plea agreement is valid when made “voluntarily, knowingly, and
intelligently, ‘with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely
consequences.’” Bradshaw v. Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175, 183 (2005) (quoting Brady v.
United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748 (1970)). “[T]he defendant is required to understand
the nature of the charges against him and the consequences of pleading guilty,
including the possible punishments and loss of other rights.” Fitzpatrick v. Robinson,

6

Case 2:20-cv-10886-LJM-APP ECF No. 15, PageID.863 Filed 03/29/23 Page 7 of 12

723 F.3d 624, 639 (6th Cir. 2013). A plea is voluntary if it is not induced by threats
or misrepresentations and the defendant is made aware of the direct consequences of
the plea. Brady, 397 U.S. at 755. Additionally, the defendant must be aware of the
maximum sentence that can be imposed for the crime for which he is pleading guilty.
King v. Dutton, 17 F.3d 151, 154 (6th Cir. 1994). The voluntariness of a plea “can be
determined only by considering all of the relevant circumstances surrounding it.”
Brady, 397 U.S. at 749.
The state has the burden to show that the guilty plea was voluntary and
intelligent. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, (1969). This can be satisfied by a
transcript of a proper plea colloquy in the state court proceedings. Garcia v. Johnson,
991 F.2d 324, 326 (6th Cir. 1993). Where the transcript is adequate to show that the
plea was voluntary and intelligent, a presumption of correctness attaches to the statecourt findings of fact that the plea was proper. Id. at 326–27. And the petitioner bears
a “heavy burden” to overturn that presumption of correctness. Id. at 328.
The state-court record here adequately shows that Aldridge’s plea was
voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. There is nothing to indicate that Aldridge was
not mentally competent at the time of the plea. Aldridge confirmed he could read and
write in English and was not under the influence of any drugs or medication when he
entered his plea. (ECF No. 10-12, PageID.311.) The trial judge’s plea colloquy also
confirms that Aldridge was aware of the nature of the charges against him and the
direct consequences of his plea. (Id. at PageID.311–316.) The transcript further shows
that Aldridge’s plea was not induced by threats, misrepresentations, or promises not

7

Case 2:20-cv-10886-LJM-APP ECF No. 15, PageID.864 Filed 03/29/23 Page 8 of 12

made on the record, and that he entered into the plea agreement freely and
voluntarily. (Id. at PageID.314–316.) The trial court also properly informed Aldridge
of the maximum possible sentence that could be imposed for each crime Aldridge was
charged with. (Id. at PageID.313.)
Aldridge mainly challenges the voluntariness of his plea. He contends that he
was promised, by his defense counsel and the prosecution, that he would receive a
minimum sentence in the bottom third of a specific guidelines range of 10 to 46
months in exchange for his no-contest plea. (ECF No. 1, PageID.28.)
But the plea-colloquy transcript defeats this argument. The parties only agreed
that Aldridge would receive a minimum sentence at the bottom third of the guidelines
range that would ultimately be calculated by the trial court. (ECF No. 10-12,
PageID.313.) Although the parties stated that they preliminarily scored and
discussed the guidelines range, the trial-court record shows that the parties
understood it was an estimate subject to change.
A close look at both the plea and sentencing transcripts reveals that the plea
was voluntary. For example, the prosecutor stated at the plea hearing that “we did
go through the preliminary guidelines, knowing that’s what they are, preliminarily.”
(Id. at PageID.307–308.) The trial court and the prosecutor placed the terms of the
plea agreement on the record, with no mention of the specific sentence Aldridge
claims he was promised, and Aldridge acknowledged several times that this was the
entire agreement. (Id. at PageID.307–308, 313, 318.) Again, Aldridge, his counsel,
and the prosecutor all verified during the plea colloquy that they were not aware of

8

Case 2:20-cv-10886-LJM-APP ECF No. 15, PageID.865 Filed 03/29/23 Page 9 of 12

any threats, inducements, or promises made that were not on the record. (Id. at
PageID.318.) Importantly, Aldridge also confirmed during the plea colloquy that no
one, including the prosecutor and his defense counsel, promised him a specific
sentence in return for his no-contest plea. (Id. at PageID.314.)
Further, any misunderstanding Aldridge could have reasonably had about the
certainty of the preliminary guidelines range was cured by the trial court’s plea
colloquy. See Ramos v. Rogers, 170 F.3d 560, 565 (6th Cir. 1999) (finding “the state
trial court’s proper colloquy . . . cured any misunderstanding [defendant] may have
had about the consequences of his plea”). This colloquy confirmed that (1) Aldridge
had not been promised a specific sentence in return for pleading no contest; (2) the
only promise made as part of the plea agreement was that Aldridge’s sentence would
be capped at the bottom third of his sentencing guidelines range as calculated by the
trial court; (3) no other promises had been made to induce Aldridge to plead no
contest; (4) Aldridge was freely and voluntarily entering into the agreement; and (5)
by pleading, Aldridge understood that he would be giving up any claims that his plea
was a result of any promises or threats that he did not tell the trial judge about at
the plea hearing. (ECF No. 10-12, PageID.313–316.) In sum, the trial judge’s
thorough plea colloquy ensured Aldridge was advised about the preliminary nature
of the discussed guidelines range.
The sentencing hearing was consistent. There, Aldridge’s counsel and the
prosecution both stated that there was never a promise of a specific guidelines range.
(ECF No. 10-13, PageID.335.) Further, defense counsel stated that although the

9

Case 2:20-cv-10886-LJM-APP ECF No. 15, PageID.866 Filed 03/29/23 Page 10 of 12

parties had initially scored the minimum guidelines as 10 to 46 months, he
specifically advised Aldridge that the preliminary guidelines were estimates subject
to change. Id. And the prosecutor stated, “there was never an agreement to a specific
guidelines range.” Id. Instead, according to the prosecutor, “[t]hat was the original
estimate. Of course, [Aldridge’s] additional pick up of another felony offense for
domestic violence in another county has added 25 points we didn’t expect when he
was on bond.” Id.
The plea colloquy taken with the statements of the prosecution and defense
counsel at sentencing clearly indicate that Aldridge was never promised any specific
guidelines range as enticement to plead no-contest. In fact, the record and Aldridge’s
own responses to the colloquy indicate that Aldridge entered his plea knowing that
the preliminary guidelines were subject to change. As Aldridge made his plea
knowingly and voluntarily, there was no violation of his constitutional rights.
But Aldridge also contends that a Michigan state-court rule gave him the right
to seek to withdraw his guilty plea. See Mich. R. Crim. P. 6.310(B). Aldridge
specifically argues that the judge’s departure from the preliminary guidelines
amounted to a modification of the Cobbs agreement, which entitled him to withdraw
his no-contest plea. (ECF No. 1, PageID.23–25.)
Generally, “federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law.”
Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67 (1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). “It is
true, however, that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause can protect
certain state-created rights.” Hynes v. Birkett, 526 F. App’x 515, 520 (6th Cir. 2013).

10

Case 2:20-cv-10886-LJM-APP ECF No. 15, PageID.867 Filed 03/29/23 Page 11 of 12

To rise to the level of a federal due process violation, an error of state law must
effectively “depriv[e] the defendant of fundamental fairness in the trial process.”
Turpin v. Kassulke, 26 F.3d 1392, 1399 (6th Cir.1994). “It is not enough for [Aldridge]
to argue simply that he has certain state rights that are protected by federal due
process. Instead, he must demonstrate that Supreme Court precedent has clearly
established that the state rights he alleges are in fact protected by the Fourteenth
Amendment’s Due Process Clause.” Hynes, 526 F. App’x at 520 (emphasis in original).
In Hynes, the Sixth Circuit considered an analogous habeas petition claiming
a federal due process violation as a result of a trial court’s alleged deprivation of the
defendant’s rights under the same Michigan plea withdrawal rule at issue here. Id.
There, the defendant alleged that he had an oral agreement with the prosecutor after
he entered his plea agreement but before sentencing, whereby the prosecutor
promised to recommend a reduced sentence in exchange for the defendant’s testimony
in an unrelated homicide. Id. at 517. The prosecutor allegedly reneged on that
promise, and the defendant maintained he should have been allowed to withdraw his
guilty plea as a result. Id. The Sixth Circuit found that Rule 6.310(B)(2) did not give
the defendant the right “to withdraw his Cobbs guilty plea for an alleged violation of
a post-plea agreement with the prosecution,” noting that the rule only applies when
a judge refuses to comply with the terms of a Cobbs plea agreement or a prosecutor’s
sentencing recommendation that is on record. Id. at 521.
Similar to the plea in Hynes, Aldridge’s plea agreement involved only the Cobbs
agreement to cap his sentence at the bottom third of the minimum sentencing

11

Case 2:20-cv-10886-LJM-APP ECF No. 15, PageID.868 Filed 03/29/23 Page 12 of 12

guidelines—an agreement that the trial court complied with—and not any promise
of a specific guidelines range. Indeed, Aldridge specifically denied the existence of a
promise for a specific sentence during the trial judge’s plea colloquy. (ECF No. 10-12,
PageID.314.) Rule 6.310(B)(2), therefore, gives Aldridge no constitutional right to
withdraw his Cobbs no-contest plea. Moreover, as the Sixth Circuit in Hynes stated
there is “no clearly established federal law affording [Aldridge] the broad right to seek
to withdraw his guilty plea for no particular reason.” Hynes, 526 F. App’x at 520.
In sum, the state-court record plainly shows that the parties agreed that the
preliminary guidelines they scored were subject to change and, therefore, were not
part of the plea agreement. Aldridge agreed to plead no contest in exchange for a
minimum sentence at the bottom third of the guidelines range calculated by the trial
court and received that sentence. And the record unquestionably establishes that
Aldridge’s plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
IV.
The trial court thus did not violate Aldridge’s clearly established constitutional
rights by refusing to allow him to withdraw his no-contest plea.
Accordingly, Aldridge’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. A
separate order on Aldridge’s certificate of appealability and a separate judgment will
follow.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 29, 2023
s/Laurie J. Michelson
LAURIE J. MICHELSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12