United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER HOLDING IN ABEYANCE THE PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING THE
HONORABLE ARTHUR J. TARNOW UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
James DeBruyn, (“Petitioner”), confined at the
Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility in Ionia, Michigan, filed
a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction for
armed robbery, first-degree home invasion, four counts of
unlawful imprisonment, five counts of assault with a
dangerous weapon, larceny from a building, larceny of a
firearm, and thirteen counts of possession of a firearm in
the commission of a felony. Petitioner acknowledges in his
petition that he did not exhaust several of his claims with
the state courts. In lieu of dismissing the petition
without prejudice, this Court holds the petition in abeyance
and stays the proceedings under the terms outlined in this
opinion to permit petitioner to return to the state courts to
exhaust his additional claims. If this fails, the petition
will be dismissed without prejudice.
pleaded guilty in the Livingston County Circuit Court on
March 19, 2015 and was sentenced to a total of twenty two to
forty years on the various charges.
Michigan Court of Appeals denied petitioner leave to appeal.
People v. DeBruyn, No. 328363 (Mich.Ct.App. Aug. 25,
2015). The Michigan Supreme Court remanded the case to the
trial court for re-sentencing in light of People v.
Lockridge, 498 Mich. 358; 870 N.W.2d 502 (Mich. 2015),
which held that Michigan's Sentencing Guidelines scheme
violates the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial.
People v. Debruyn, 499 Mich. 912, 877 N.W.2d 894
was apparently re-sentenced to the same sentences.
plea and sentence were again affirmed on appeal. People
v. Debruyn, No. 334820 (Mich.Ct.App. Nov. 7, 2016);
lv. den. 500 Mich. 984, 893 N.W.2d 629 (2017).
filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, seeking relief on
the following grounds:
I. Ineffective assistance of counsel when not considering
insanity or temporary insanity at sentencing.
II. Ineffective assistance of counsel when attorney denied a
plea deal without telling the defendant.
III. Ineffective assistance of counsel when [the judge]
scored 10 points for OV [Offense Variable] 4 [of the Michigan
Sentencing Guidelines] when it should have been 0 points.
IV. Ineffective assistance of counsel when 25 points were
scored for OV-1 when it should have been 15 points.
V. Ineffective assistance of counsel when OV-14 was scored at
VI. Ineffective assistance of counsel when the probation
officer made certain statements that lacked foundation and