Sears v. Howard
Filing
2
OPINION AND ORDER Dismissing Petitioner's 1 Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, Declining to Issue a Certificate of Appealability, and Denying Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis. Signed by District Judge Bernard A. Friedman. (JCur)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CHRISTINA E. SEARS,
#839012,
Petitioner,
vs.
Civil Action No. 20-CV-13426
HON. BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN
JEREMY HOWARD,
Respondent.
_____________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR A
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY, AND DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Christina E. Sears (“petitioner”), presently confined at the Huron Valley Women's
Correctional Facility in Ypsilanti, Michigan, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. In her pro se application, petitioner challenges her conviction for conspiracy to commit
first-degree murder, in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 750.157a, 750.316, and solicitation
to commit first-degree murder, in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.157b(2). For the
reasons stated below, the Court shall dismiss the petition.
Petitioner was convicted of these offenses following a jury trial in Macomb
County Circuit Court. Her conviction and sentence was affirmed on appeal. See People v.
Sears, No. 312956, 2014 WL 465716 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2014); lv. den. 500 Mich. 889, 887
N.W.2d 415 (2016). Her petition for a writ of coram nobis, which the trial court construed as
a post-conviction motion for relief from judgment, was denied. See People v. Sears, No.
11-001765-FC (Macomb Cty. Cir. Ct., Jan. 7, 2019). Petitioner’s appeal of that decision was
denied by the Michigan appellate courts. See People v. Sears, No. 348422 (Mich. Ct. App. July
11, 2019); lv. den. 946 N.W.2d 252 (Mich. 2020).
Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus on the following grounds: (1) “W[ere]
petitioner’s IV, V, and XIV Constitutional rights violated when Macomb County Police
Department searched her cell phone without a warrant[?]”; and (2) “Did police misconduct
violate petitioner’s IV, V, and XIV Constitutional rights violated in searching her cell phone
without a warrant[?]” PageID.10-12.
Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, “[i]f it plainly appears
from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the
district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.”
Under this rule, “[f]ederal courts are authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that
appears legally insufficient on its face.” McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994).
In the present case, it is plainly apparent that petitioner is not entitled to habeas
relief. The only basis she asserts for such relief is that the police violated her Fourth
Amendment rights by searching her cell phone without a warrant. The Supreme Court has held
that “where the State has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth
Amendment claim, a state prisoner may not be granted federal habeas corpus relief on the
ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure was introduced at his
trial.” Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 494 (1976) (footnotes omitted). “[A]n ‘opportunity for
full and fair consideration’ means an available avenue for the prisoner to present his claim to
the state courts, not an inquiry into the adequacy of the procedure actually used to resolve that
particular claim.’” Neil v. Forshey, No. 20-3491, 2020 WL 6498732, at *3 (6th Cir. Oct. 30,
2020) (quoting Good v. Berghuis, 729 F.3d 636, 639 (6th Cir. 2013)).
2
In the present case, petitioner acknowledges that she raised her Fourth
Amendment claims before the state courts on two occasions. She indicates that she did so on
direct appeal, see PageID.12-13, and also in her motion for post-conviction relief. See Page
ID.7-9. The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that Michigan courts routinely entertain
challenges to evidence allegedly obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. See, e.g.,
People v. Hughes, No. 158652, 2020 WL 8022850 (Mich. Dec. 28, 2020) (Michigan Supreme
Court reviewing defendant’s argument, although not raised at trial, that evidence seized from
his cell phone should not have been admitted at trial); People v. Lewis, No. 349774, 2021 WL
220763 (Mich. Ct. of App. Jan. 21, 2021) (addressing Fourth Amendment issue on appeal after
the trial court denied defendant’s motion to suppress); and People v. Palmer, No. 345456, 2021
WL 69057 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 7, 2021) (reviewing defendant’s Fourth Amendment argument
on appeal for plain error after defendant failed to object to admission of the evidence in question
at trial).
The Court concludes that petitioner had an opportunity to fully and fairly litigate
her Fourth Amendment claims before the state courts. Review of those claims in this Court are
therefore barred by Stone. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the petition in this matter is dismissed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue
because petitioner has made no substantial showing that any of her constitutional rights have
been violated.
3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner may not proceed on appeal in forma
pauperis because no appeal in this matter could be taken in good faith.
Dated: February 1, 2021
Detroit, Michigan
s/Bernard A. Friedman
Bernard A. Friedman
Senior 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 February 1, 2021.
Christina E. Sears, #839012
Huron Valley Complex - Womens
3201 Bemis Road
Ypsilanti, MI 48197
s/Johnetta M. Curry-Williams
Case Manager
4
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?