The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Marianne O. Battani
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Petitioner Mark Earl White, who is currently released on parole, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his convictions in Saginaw County Circuit Court for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. Respondent has filed an answer arguing that the petition should be dismissed because it contains unexhausted claims.
Petitioner pleaded guilty in Saginaw County Circuit Court to operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. On August 17, 2007, Petitioner was sentenced to fifteen months to ten years' imprisonment.
On October 3, 2007, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Michigan Court of Appeals. The petition was not filed with the court because Petitioner failed to comply with the filing fee requirements. White v. Dep't of Corrections, No. 281030 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2007). Petitioner filed an application for leave to appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court. The court denied Petitioner's motion to waive fees and his appeal was not filed with the court because he failed to submit a partial filing fee. White v. Dep't of Corrections, No. 135566 (Mich. Feb. 21, 2008).
Petitioner then filed an application for leave to appeal in the Michigan Court of Appeals, raising the following claims:
I. Whether defendant was denied his U.S. Constitutional rights by the trial court's refusal to hear pro per motion and by granting personal recognizance bond to deny due process rights and punish prior to any findings of guilt.
II. The Michigan Department of Corrections failed/refused to correct a policy/rule under Michigan Constitutional 1963 Art. 6 Section 1 authority that caused material prejudice to defendant's due process rights.
III. The trial court and MDOC administrative court were divested of jurisdiction by a judicial admission which rendered further action by both courts a nullity and caused substantial and material harm and false imprisonment.
The Michigan Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal. People v. White, No. 283421 (Mich. Ct. App. July 25, 2008).
Petitioner filed a pro per motion for reconsideration raising three new claims:
I. Defendant in this case was a victim of malicious vindictive prosecution by the trial judge, Saginaw County Prosecutor's Office and appointed trial counsel.
II. The trial court denied defendant his constitutional rights by denying defendant the right to represent himself and to be tried before an impartial court, which are structural constitutional errors requiring automatic reversal, and when the judge threatened defendant with maximum sentence if he did not plead, this rendered the plea involuntary.
III. Defendant did not waive his right to file in the trial court to withdraw his plea or correct the record and was denied effective assistance of appellate counsel who refused to file to preserve the issue thereby denying defendant his constitutional rights.
The Michigan Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration. People v. White, No. 283421 (Mich. Ct. App. Aug. 27, 2008).
Petitioner then filed an application for leave to appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court, raising the following claims:
I. Defendant was denied the right to represent himself.
II. Defendant was denied the Sixth Amendment right to file a defense where trial counsel refused to file the defense ...