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.

Brontkowski v. Gidley

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

April 10, 2015

ALLEN ROY BRONTKOWSKI, Petitioner,
v.
LORI GIDLEY, Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

ARTHUR J. TARNOW, Senior District Judge.

Allen Roy Brontkowski, ("petitioner"), confined at the Central Michigan Correctional Facility in St. Louis, Michigan, seeks the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254. In his application, filed pro se, petitioner challenges his conviction for extortion, M.C.L.A. 750.213, four counts of unlawful imprisonment, M.C.L.A. 750.349b, assault, M.C.L.A. 750.81, and possession of a firearm during a felony (felony firearm), M.C.L.A. 750.227b. For the reasons stated below, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

I. Background

Petitioner was convicted following a jury trial in the Macomb County Circuit Court.

Petitioner filed an appeal of right, in which he raised the following claims:

Did the prosecutor deny Mr. Brontkowski due process and a fair trial by failing to reveal the complete plea agreement with the accomplice-witness for his testimony thereby misleading the jury regarding the witness's credibility; was trial counsel ineffective for failing to adequately cross-examine the witness on this issue, U.S. Const. Am XIV?

Petitioner's conviction was affirmed on appeal. People v. Brontkowski, No. 313002, 2014 WL 1233894 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2014); lv. Den. 497 Mich. 855, 852 N.W.2d 630 (2014).

On March 12, 2015, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with this Court.[1] In addition to seeking relief on the claims that he raised on direct appeal, petitioner also seeks habeas relief on the following "new issues":

I. DNA evidence needs to be considered by the court. Via trial transcripts there was no DNA on the weapon that the victim claims to have been pistol whipped indicating that the victim lied in regards to the testimony given.
II. The prosecutor is bound by the rules of ethics and court rules from having witnesses lie in order to obtain a conviction.
III. DVD evidence statement taken by the police that the prosecution or defense counsel refused to show the jury. Failure on the part of the aforementioned parties to enter the evidence shows that the government was willing to hide the truth about the events leading to the charges in which the defendant was convicted of. This issue violates the defendant's rights under XVI Amendments of the Constitution. The right of due process is absolute and cannot be infringed upon.
IV. Defendant insists he was never read his Miranda rights by police.
V. Defendant contends that prosecutorial misconduct is apparent. The prosecutor's office had a duty to provide defendant with the totality of the discovery packet. For such is not an option for the prosecutor. Furthermore, even if the prosecutor failed to provide all evidence that prosecutor should have known that this is a judiciary responsibility and to do otherwise is a clear violation of Michigan Court Rules coupled with code of ethics for the officers of the court. Moreover, the standard of conduct should be held at its highest regarding such an office. The trust of the public cannot and should not diminish. The defendant contends that this new issue should have been brought forth at the lower courts (i.e.) The Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court but has not. Moreover, defendant asserts that new issues have been exhausted at the trial level.
VI. Mr. Allen Brontkowski received ineffective assistance during court proceedings in violation of his state and federal rights by his defense counsel and thereby committing malpractice by defense counsel. The trial court abused its discretion when it did not establish the failed attempts of the defense counsel to identify the rules of law as it related to witnesses' testimony under oath. Appointed counsel having ...

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.