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.

Frazier v. Scutt

April 8, 2010

COREY FRAZIER, PETITIONER,
v.
DEBRA SCUTT, RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Marianne O. Battani

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PETITIONER'S MOTION TO AMEND THE HABEAS PETITION

Petitioner Corey Frazier has filed a pro se habeas corpus petition challenging his state convictions for first-degree murder and two firearm offenses. He claims that: (1) the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to grant a mistrial when the prosecutor elicited testimony that Petitioner previously got away with murder and would kill for money; (2) he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to confront his accusers by the admission of his co-defendant's hearsay statements; and (3) his trial attorney was ineffective for failing to object to the use of the co-defendant's hearsay statements. Respondent argues in an answer to the habeas petition that Petitioner's claims lack merit or are procedurally defaulted and that the claimed errors were harmless or did not prejudice the defense.

Pending before the Court is Petitioner's joint motion for an evidentiary hearing and to amend the habeas petition. The motion [Dkt. #9] alleges that Petitioner's case is similar to People v. Shotwell, No. 92796 (Mich. Ct. App. Sept. 1, 1988), and that an evidentiary hearing is necessary to correct the record and to develop the facts regarding Petitioner's trial attorney.

To the extent that Petitioner merely seeks to bring the Shotwell case to the Court's attention, his motion is GRANTED. The motion is DENIED without prejudice to the extent that it seeks an evidentiary hearing, because the Court is not persuaded that Petitioner has alleged "sufficient grounds for release." Stanford v. Parker, 266 F.3d 442, 459 (6th Cir. 2001) (quoting Wilson v. Kemna, 12 F.3d 145, 146 (8th Cir. 1994)). The Court will reconsider Petitioner's motion, if necessary, following a review of the state court record. It will not be necessary for Petitioner to renew his motion.

MARIANNE O. BATTANI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20100408

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw ...

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.