United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
GERALD E. ROSEN, Chief District Judge.
Petitioner Richard Bastuba has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is incarcerated at the Cooper Street Correctional Facility in Jackson, Michigan, pursuant to convictions for second-degree home invasion and receiving and concealing stolen property. He seeks habeas relief on the grounds that inaccurate information was relied upon for the scoring of his offense variables and that the presentence investigation report included inaccurate and biased statements. It is apparent from the face of the petition that habeas relief is not warranted. Therefore, the Court summarily dismisses the petition.
Petitioner pleaded no contest in Washtenaw County Circuit Court to second-degree home invasion and receiving and concealing stolen property. On January 3, 2013, he was sentenced to 3 to 15 years' imprisonment for the home invasion conviction and 1 to 5 years' imprisonment for the stolen property conviction.
On June 26, 2013, Petitioner filed a motion to correct presentence report in the trial court. The trial court denied the motion on August 5, 2013. People v. Bastuba, No. 11-001459-FH (Washtenaw County Cir. Ct. Aug. 5, 2013).
Petitioner filed an application for leave to appeal in the Michigan Court of Appeals. The Michigan Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal "for lack of merit in the grounds presented." People v. Bastuba, No. 320250 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 17, 2014). Petitioner filed an application for leave to appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court. The Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. People v. Bastuba, 497 Mich. 919 (Mich. Nov. 26, 2014).
Petitioner then filed the pending habeas petition. He raises these claims:
I. Petitioner's due process rights have been infringed upon by the state court denials using an unreasonable application of federal precedent law set forth in Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736 (1948). Also the state courts used an unreasonable determination of the actual facts of the case that are unfounded and unsupported.
II. Petitioner's due process rights have been infringed upon by a presentence report full of inaccurate and biased statements, rendering the state court denials as an unreasonable application of Townsend v. Burke , and an unreasonable determination of the actual facts of the case as to the existing record.
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. The petition will be dismissed.
Review of this case is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"). Under the AEDPA, a state prisoner is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus only if he can show ...