Woods #737144 v. Smith
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: petitioner to file copies of appellate briefs and motion for relief from judgment filed in Kent County Circuit Court w/in 14 days; signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph G. Scoville (Magistrate Judge Joseph G. Scoville, mmh)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TROY ANTHONY WOODS,
Petitioner,
v.
Case No. 1:12-cv-672
Honorable Paul L. Maloney
WILLIE O. SMITH,
Respondent.
____________________________________/
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This is a habeas corpus action brought by a state prisoner under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Promptly after the filing of a petition for habeas corpus, the Court must undertake a preliminary
review of the petition 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 28 U.S.C. § 2243. After undertaking its review, Court concludes that
it is unclear whether Petitioner has exhausted available state-court remedies with respect to ground
IV of the petition. Therefore, the Court will order Petitioner to submit evidence of exhaustion, as
set forth below.
I.
Background
In July 2009, after a jury trial in Kent County Circuit Court, Petitioner was convicted
of possession of a firearm by a felon, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.224f, possession with intent to
deliver less than 50 grams of cocaine, Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.7401(2)(a)(iv), and possession of
a firearm during the commission of a felony, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.227b. In April 2010, after
granting a motion for resentencing, the court sentenced him to concurrent prison terms of 2 years and
8 months to 30 years for the felon-in-possession conviction and 2 years and 8 months to 40 years for
the cocaine conviction. The state court also sentenced him to a 2-year term for the felony-firearm
conviction, to run consecutively to the other sentences.
Petitioner appealed his convictions as of right to the Michigan Court of Appeals and
to the Michigan Supreme Court, raising the following claims:
1. The evidence did not support defendant’s conviction for Possession of a Firearm
during the commission of a felony; 2. Defendant was the victim of an “Invalid”
Search and Seizure; 3. Defendant’s right to confrontation was violated because
because the star witness Pamela Spencer did not testify at either the Preliminary
Examination or trial; and 4. Defendant was not accorded the adequate assistance of
trial or appellate counsel[.]
(Pet., docket #1, Page ID##2-3.) Those courts denied his appeals on December 28, 2010 and June
28, 2011, respectively.
Sometime before May 22, 2012, Petitioner filed a motion for relief from judgment
in Kent County Circuit Court under subchapter 6.500 of the Michigan Court Rules, claiming that he
received inadequate assistance of trial and appellate counsel. (See Pet., docket #1, Page ID#4.) The
court denied his motion on May 22, 2012, and it appears that Petitioner has not appealed that
decision.
Petitioner filed his application for relief under § 2254 on or around June 27, 2012,
raising the following grounds for relief:
I.
A RATIONAL JURY COULD NOT CONCLUDE BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT THAT [PETITIONER] HAD
REASONABLE ACCESS TO, AND THUS POSSESSED, A
FIREARM DURING THE COMMISSION OF A FELONY.
II.
[PETITIONER’S] CONVICTION WAS THE RESULT OF AN
ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE.
III.
[PETITIONER’S]
SIXTH
AMENDMENT
-2-
RIGHT[]
TO
CONFRONTATION WAS VIOLATED BECAUSE THE
PROSECUTION’S STAR WITNESS (PAMELA SPENCER) DID
NOT TESTIFY AT EITHER THE PRELIMINARY
EXAMINATION OR HIS TRIAL.
IV.
[PETITIONER] WAS NOT GIVEN THE ADEQUATE
ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL OR APPELLATE COUNSEL IN
FULFILLMENT OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
(Pet., docket #1, Page ID##8-9.)
II.
Exhaustion of State Court Remedies
Before the Court may grant habeas relief to a state prisoner, the prisoner must exhaust
remedies available in the state courts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1); O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838,
842 (1999). Exhaustion requires a petitioner to “fairly present” federal claims so that state courts
have a “fair opportunity” to apply controlling legal principles to the facts bearing upon a petitioner’s
constitutional claim. See O’Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 842; Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275-77
(1971), cited in Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995), and Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4,
6 (1982). To fulfill the exhaustion requirement, a petitioner must have fairly presented his federal
claims to all levels of the state appellate system, including the state’s highest court. Duncan, 513
U.S. at 365-66; Wagner v. Smith, 581 F.3d 410, 414 (6th Cir. 2009); Hafley v. Sowders, 902 F.2d
480, 483 (6th Cir. 1990). “[S]tate prisoners must give the state courts one full opportunity to resolve
any constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the State’s established appellate review
process.” O’Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 845. The district court can and must raise the exhaustion issue
sua sponte when it clearly appears that habeas claims have not been presented to the state courts.
See Prather v. Rees, 822 F.2d 1418, 1422 (6th Cir. 1987); Allen, 424 F.2d at 138-39. Petitioner
bears the burden of showing exhaustion. See Rust v. Zent, 17 F.3d 155, 160 (6th Cir. 1994).
Based on Petitioner’s submissions to the Court, it is not clear whether he has
-3-
exhausted available state remedies with respect to all of the issues raised in the petition. Petitioner
expressly states that he raised grounds I and II on appeal from his conviction, and based on the
descriptions of his claims, it appears that he also raised ground III on direct appeal. However, he
does not expressly indicate whether he raised all of the issues in ground IV on appeal, and it is not
clear from his descriptions of his claims whether he did so. Ground IV concerns ineffective
assistance of trial and appellate counsel. Petitioner contends that he raised at least one claim
regarding ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel on direct appeal, though the content
of that claim is not specified. Petitioner also raised ineffective-assistance claims in a motion for
relief from judgment, though it is not clear whether that motion raised new issues that were not
presented on direct appeal.
To the extent that the petition relies on claims raised for the first time in the motion
for relief from judgment, Petitioner has not exhausted those claims. Moreover, it appears that
Petitioner can still exhaust them by appealing the decision denying his motion from relief from
judgment. Under Michigan law, he has six months from the date that his motion was denied (i.e.,
until approximately November 22, 2012) to file a delayed application for leave to appeal. See Mich.
Ct. R. 7.205(F)(3).
Therefore, the Court will order Petitioner to demonstrate whether he has exhausted
available state remedies with respect to ground IV. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT Petitioner shall, within 14 days of the date of entry of this
order, submit to the Court a copy of: (1) all briefs that he or his counsel submitted to the Michigan
Court of Appeals or to the Michigan Supreme Court on appeal from his criminal conviction; and (2)
a copy of the motion for relief from judgment (and brief in support) that he filed in Kent County
Circuit Court.
-4-
Failure to comply with the Court’s order may result in dismissal of this action without
prejudice.
Dated: October 4, 2012
/s/ Joseph G. Scoville
United States Magistrate Judge
-5-
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?