United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER HOLDING IN ABEYANCE THE PETITION
FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING THE
HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Bullard, (“Petitioner”), presently confined at
the Alger Maximum Correctional Facility in Munising,
Michigan, filed a pro se petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging
his conviction for second-degree criminal sexual conduct,
M.C.L.A. § 750.520c(1)(A).
filed an answer to the petition. As part of the answer,
respondent asks this Court to dismiss the petition on the
ground that petitioner's sixth claim, pertaining to the
trial judge's utilization of factors to increase his
minimum sentence that were not submitted to the jury, is
unexhausted. In lieu of dismissing the petition for
writ of habeas corpus, the Court will hold the petition in
abeyance and will stay the proceedings under the terms
outlined below in the opinion to permit petitioner to return
to the state courts to exhaust the additional claim, failing
which the petition shall be dismissed without prejudice. The
Court will also administratively close the case.
was convicted of the above offenses following a jury trial in
the Huron County Circuit Court. Petitioner's conviction
was affirmed on appeal. People v. Bullard, No.
310854 (Mich. Ct. App. Jun. 19, 2013), lv. den. 840
N.W.2d 357 (Mich. 2013).
filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus on June 6,
2014, in which he sought habeas relief on the following
I. In prohibiting admission of defense expert testimony, the
trial court violated the rules of evidence, and the
constitutional right to present a defense.
II. The trial court's improper admission of hearsay
evidence of complainant's statement to Kevin Scherret and
hospital staff rendered the trial unfair and violated Mr.
Bullard's due process rights.
III. Conviction is based on the testimonial hearsay
statements of an unavailable declarant. Violation of Sixth
Amendment right to confrontation by admitting the statements
and reports at the hospital.
IV. Violation of right to counsel, where there was a
breakdown in the relationship with counsel, the trial judge
refused request for new counsel without an adequate inquiry
into the breakdown.
V. The trial court denied Appellant his constitutional due
process right to a fair trial and abused its discretion by
denying the motion to appoint an expert in forensic
VI. Appellant's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights
were violated by judicial fact finding which increased the
floor of the permissible sentence.
petition for writ of habeas corpus is subject to dismissal
because petitioner has not properly exhausted his sixth claim
alleging that the trial court judge used factors that had not