United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY OR LEAVE TO
APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III United States District Judge
Winston, confined at the West Shoreline Correctional Facility
in Muskegon Heights, Michigan, seeks habeas relief pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenges his plea-based
conviction and sentence for first-degree criminal sexual
conduct, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.520(b)(1)(a). For the
following reasons, the Court will deny the petition.
January 12, 2009, Winston pleaded guilty to a single count of
first-degree criminal sexual conduct ("CSC I") with
a child under the age of 13. The parties entered into a
sentence agreement pursuant to which Winston would be
sentenced to 14 to 40 years imprisonment in exchange for the
dismissal of a weapons charge and seven CSC charges, which
may have carried a mandatory minimum prison term of 25 years.
The trial court informed Winston of the rights he would be
giving up by pleading guilty. Winston indicated he understood
the rights he would be relinquishing and acknowledged that he
had not been threatened or coerced into pleading guilty. In
making out a factual basis for the plea, Winston informed the
court that he had fellatio with a minor under the age of 13.
January 27, 2009, the court sentenced Winston to 14 to 40
years in prison. The conviction and sentence were affirmed on
appeal. See ECF Nos. 20-7, 20-8. Winston's
post-conviction motion for relief from judgment was denied.
See ECF No. 20-5. The Michigan appellate courts
denied Winston leave to appeal. See ECF Nos. 20-9,
20-10. Winston now seeks the issuance of a writ of habeas
corpus on the following grounds:
I. Defendant's invalid sentence must be corrected as it
was an abuse of discretion and disproportionate.
II. Due process requires resentencing where the court
enhanced Winston's sentence based on facts neither
admitted by Winston nor proven to a jury beyond a reasonable
doubt. U.S. CONST AM VI, XIV.
III. Petitioner was not given the lesser included offense of
IV. Petitioner [sic] guideline scoring was inaccurate.
V. The weapons seized in this case were the produc[t] of an
illegal search and seizure.
VI. Petitioner [sic] due process rights were violated where
he was arrest [sic] for investigation, thereby making his
VII. Defendant's attorney was ineffective in violation of
his 6th Amendment rights, where counsel failed to investigate
charges, failed to file motions requested and induced
Defendant into an illusory plea offer.
VIII. Petitioner's Fourth Amendment rights were violated
where the weapons seized could not have been seized because
police did not obtain a search warrant.
IX. Petitioner's appellate attorney was ineffective in
violation of his 6th Amendment rights, for failure to raise
issues presented and failure to assist petitioner with
Standard #4 supplemental at the appeal level.
X. The circuit court judge abused her discretion by allowing
the petitioner to plead to a crime he could not have
committed by the information used at sentencing.
Petition 1-9, ECF No. 12.
U.S.C. § 2254(d), as amended by The Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), imposes the
following standard of review for habeas cases:
application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person
in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall
not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated
on the merits in ...