Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Maddox-El v. McKee

March 17, 2010

KEITH MADDOX-EL, PETITIONER,
v.
KENNETH MCKEE, RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS, REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ADJUDICATIVE FACT, PETITION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING, AND PETITION FOR EMERGENCY HEARING

On March 28, 2007, Petitioner Keith Maddox-El, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the Mound Correctional Facility in Detroit, Michigan, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges the following jury convictions and sentences imposed in Wayne County Circuit Court: (1) three to fifteen years imprisonment for felon in possession of a firearm; (2) one to fifteen years imprisonment for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, and possession of cocaine, less than twenty-five grams; and (3) mandatory ten years imprisonment served prior and consecutive to the other concurrent sentences for possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony as a third or subsequent felony conviction.

Now before the Court are Petitioner's motion to stay proceedings [Dkt. # 47], request for judicial notice of adjudicative fact [Dkt. # 44], petition for evidentiary hearing [Dkt. # 49], and petition for emergency hearing [Dkt. # 50]. Notably, Petitioner has made each of the aforementioned requests in previous court filings. See, e.g., [Dkt. # 11, 12, 15, 18]. For the reasons stated below, Petitioner's motion and requests will be denied.

I.

Following his convictions and sentencing, Petitioner filed an appeal of right with the Michigan Court of Appeals, raising four claims:

I. The trial court abused its discretion in denying counsel's motion to withdraw and in refusing [Petitioner's] request for substitution of counsel, thereby violating [his] Sixth Amendment right.

II. Trial counsel was ineffective for allowing admission of [Petitioner's] prior narcotics conviction as a named felony.

III. The prosecution failed to meet its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that [Petitioner] carried or possessed a firearm during the commission of a felony.

IV. [Petitioner's] federal constitutional rights to a jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt were violated when the court imposed a mandatory ten year prison sentence for the felony firearm count based on facts that were not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Petitioner subsequently filed a pro per supplemental brief with the Court of Appeals in which he raised five additional claims:

I. [Petitioner] was denied effective assistance of counsel due to counsel's failure to file discovery, failure to argue and obtain a ruling of [his] motion to suppress search warrant, and failure to produce alibi witnesses on the relevant record in violation of the Sixth Amendment and Article I, Section 17, 20 of the Michigan Constitution.

II. [Petitioner] was denied his constitutional right to present a defense when the trial court denied his request for a continuance in order to secure the presence of alibi defense witnesses in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments and Article I, Section 17, 20 of the Michigan Constitution.

III. The prosecutor's failure to timely comply with discovery due to lack of jurisdiction and the fact that no probable cause existed for a search warrant denied [Petitioner] his constitutional rights to a fair trial and due process of law in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments and Article I, Section 17 of the Michigan Constitution.

IV. [Petitioner] was denied effective assistance of counsel because counsel failed to argue and obtain a ruling on [his] motion to dismiss the search warrant due to no relevant record of not having constructive possession or possession of a firearm.

V. [Petitioner] was denied effective assistance of counsel because counsel failed to argue and obtain a ruling on [his] motion to suppress a search warrant in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.