United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE PETITION TO COMPEL
PRODUCTION OF TRANSCRIPTS , DENYING THE PETITION FOR A
STAY , AND SUMMARILY DISMISSING THE HABEAS CORPUS PETITION
PAGE HOOD CHIEF JUDGE
27, 2016, petitioner Calvin Darnell Warsaw (Warsaw) filed a
pro se habeas corpus petition, challenging his state
convictions for second-degree murder, Mich. Comp. Laws §
750.317, and possession of a firearm during the commission of
a felony (felony firearm), Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.227b.
Warsaw asserts as grounds for relief that: (1) the trial
court abused its discretion when it failed to correct
information in his pre-sentence report; (2) he should have
been given an opportunity to contest enforcement of a court
order to pay attorney fees; and (3) he was sentenced on the
basis of incorrect sentencing guidelines. Also pending before
the Court are Warsaw's petitions to compel production of
transcripts and to stay these proceedings while he exhausts
state remedies for his third claim.
Court has determined that none of Warsaw's habeas claims
are cognizable on habeas corpus review. Accordingly, the
habeas petition will be summarily dismissed, and the
petitions for transcripts and a stay will be denied.
alleges that, in 2014, he pleaded guilty to two counts of
second-degree murder and one count of felony firearm and
that, on July 1, 2014, the trial court sentenced him to
prison for thirty-three to fifty years. Warsaw states that he
raised his first two habeas claims in the Michigan Court of
Appeals, which denied his appeal for lack of merit in the
grounds presented, and that he raised the same two claims in
the Michigan Supreme Court. On June 30, 2015, the Michigan
Supreme Court denied leave to appeal because it was not
persuaded to review the issues. See People v.
Warsaw, 498 Mich. 854; 864 N.W.2d 573 (2015). On July
27, 2016, Warsaw filed his habeas corpus petition, his
petition for transcripts, and his petition to stay these
preliminary matter, the Court notes that Warsaw apparently
failed to raise his third claim regarding the sentencing
guidelines in the Michigan Court of Appeals and in the
Michigan Supreme Court. The doctrine of exhaustion of state
remedies requires state prisoners to invoke one complete
round of a state's established appellate review process
before presenting their claims to a federal court in a habeas
corpus petition. O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526
U.S. 838, 845 (1999). The exhaustion requirement, however, is
not jurisdictional, Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S.
346, 349 (1989), and none of Warsaw's claims are
cognizable on habeas review. Consequently, it would be a
waste of judicial resources to require Warsaw to exhaust
state remedies for his third claim. The Court therefore
denies Warsaw's petition for a stay and proceeds to
analyze the merits of his claims.
The Pre-Sentence Report
first habeas claim alleges that the trial court abused its
discretion and violated state law when it failed to correct
information in Warsaw's pre-sentence report. Warsaw
states that his sentencing guidelines were reduced before
sentencing, but the changes were not reflected in his
pre-sentence report. Warsaw seeks to have his case remanded
to the state trial court for correction of the pre-sentence
Warsaw argues that he has a due process right to have his
pre-sentence report corrected, the primary basis for his
claim is Mich. Comp. Laws § 771.14(6) and Michigan Court
Rule 6.425(E)(2), which require a pre-sentence report to be
amended before the report is transmitted to the Michigan
Department of Corrections. Even if the trial court violated
§ 771.14(6) and Rule 6.425(E)(2), “[a] federal
court may not issue the writ [of habeas corpus] on the basis
of a perceived error of state law.” Pulley v.
Harris, 465 U.S. 37, 41 (1984). “In conducting
habeas review, a federal court is limited to deciding whether
a conviction violated the Constitution, laws, or treaties of
the United States.” Estelle v. McGuire, 502
U.S. 62, 68 (1991).
“the mere presence of . . . inaccurate information in a
[pre-sentence report] does not constitute a denial of due
process.” Hili v. Sciarrotta, 140 F.3d 210,
216 (2nd Cir. 1998). The Court therefore declines to grant
relief on Warsaw's first claim, as his claim is a
state-law issue, which does not entitle him to relief.
Rodriguez v. Jones, 625 F.Supp.2d 552, 569 (E.D.
The Assessment of Court Costs
alleges next that the trial court ordered him to pay a fee of
$400.00 for his court-appointed attorney. Warsaw states that
the fee is currently being deducted from his prison account
and that he had a constitutional right to notice that the
trial court was enforcing its order. Warsaw also claims that
he had a right to contest the court's action on the basis
of his inability to pay the fees. He wants this Court to
order the state court to amend or revoke its order for
payment of attorney fees.
prisoners are entitled to the writ of habeas corpus only if
they are “in custody in violation of the Constitution
or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(a). And the traditional purpose of the writ of
habeas corpus is to challenge the fact or length of
confinement and to ...