United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS CORPUS PETITION AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
PAUL D. BORMAN, District Judge.
This is a habeas case filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner Curtis Lamont Woods is a state inmate currently incarcerated at the Michigan Reformatory in Ionia, Michigan. He challenges his convictions for armed robbery, felon in possession of a firearm, and felony firearm, second offense, on a single ground, that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The claim raised does not provide a ground on which habeas relief may be granted. Therefore, the petition will be dismissed.
Woods was convicted by a jury in Wayne County Circuit Court of armed robbery, felon in possession of a firearm, and felony firearm. On May 19, 2014, he was sentenced to 30 to 60 years' imprisonment for the armed robbery conviction, 1 to 5 years' imprisonment for the felon-in-possession conviction, and 5 years' imprisonment for the felony-firearm conviction.
On May 15, 2014, Woods filed a complaint for habeas corpus in the Michigan Court of Appeals, claiming that the trial court did not acquire subject-matter jurisdiction because of various deficiencies in the charging documents. The Michigan Court of Appeals denied the complaint. In re Woods, No. 321794 (Mich. Ct. App. July 2, 2014). Woods filed an application for leave to appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court. The Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. In re Woods, 497 Mich. 906 (2014).
Woods then filed the pending habeas petition. He raises this claim:
The pivotal question posed is whether the court acquired subject-matter jurisdiction as required by statute. Mich. Comp. Laws § 762.1; Mich. Stat. Ann. § 28.844; Mich. Comp. Laws § 764.1a; Mich. Stat. Ann. § 28.860; and Fed. R. Crim. P. 3 and 4.
Upon the filing of a habeas corpus petition, the court must promptly examine the petition to determine "if it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 cases. If the court determines that the petitioner is not entitled to relief, the court shall summarily dismiss the petition. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994) ("Federal courts are authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on its face"). The habeas petition does not present grounds which may establish the violation of a federal constitutional right, therefore, the petition will be dismissed.
The claims raised are reviewed against the standards established by the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 ...