Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Curry v. Brewer

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

March 10, 2017

QUINCY A. CURRY, Petitioner,
v.
SHAWN BREWER, Defendant.

          Patricia T. Morris Magistrate Judge.

          OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS [9] AND DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS [1]

          LAURIE J. MICHELSON U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Petitioner Quincy A. Curry, a Michigan prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his Wayne County, Michigan convictions for, among other offenses, carjacking, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.529a. Respondent Shawn Brewer moved to dismiss the petition on the basis that Petitioner's ground for relief is moot. The Court agrees. Accordingly, the Court will deny the petition with prejudice.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Following a jury trial in Wayne County Circuit Court, Petitioner was convicted, as charged, of carjacking, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.529a, conspiracy to commit carjacking, Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 750.157a and 750.529a, receiving and concealing stolen property, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.535(7), and felony firearm, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.227b.[1] On May 16, 2013, the trial court sentenced Petitioner to two years in prison for the felony-firearm conviction, followed by concurrent terms of eighteen to thirty years in prison for the carjacking and conspiracy convictions and two to five years in prison for the receiving-and-concealing-stolen-property conviction. The judgment of sentence, entered on the same day, erroneously indicated that Petitioner was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender under Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.12.

         On direct appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals, Petitioner claimed he was entitled to have his judgment of sentence corrected to reflect the fact that he was not a habitual offender. The Michigan Court of Appeals agreed with Petitioner and remanded his case to the trial court “for the ministerial task of correcting the judgment of sentence and transmitting the corrected judgment to the [Michigan Department of Corrections].” People v. Curry, No. 317090, 2014 Mich.App. LEXIS 2286, at *2 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2014). On remand, the trial court amended the judgment of sentence to remove the habitual offender designation. Petitioner nevertheless raised the same issue in an application for leave to appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court. On April 28, 2015, the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal because it was not persuaded to review the issue. People v. Curry, 862 N.W.2d 226 (Mich. 2015) (table).

         On Mach 21, 2016, Petitioner filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging his convictions on four substantive grounds. Curry v. Brewer, No. 16-cv-11040 (E.D. Mich. March 21, 2016). However, Petitioner admitted that he had not exhausted state remedies for any of the grounds raised in his petition (which included claims of insufficient evidence and judge bias), and so the Court dismissed the Petition without prejudice. See id.

         On May 26, 2016, Petitioner filed the current petition, seeking relief on the following grounds:

[1] People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750, 653, 764, 597 N.W.2d 130 (1999) . . . Judgment of sentence was incorrect because the judge sentenced me as a[] 4th [h]abitual [offender].
[2] People v. Katt, 248 Mich.App. 282, 311-312; 639 N.W.2d 815 (2001). Judgement of sentence is incorrect.
[3] People v. Jamison, 488 Mich. 851; 788 N.W.2d 6 (2010). . . . The judge sentence[d] me as a[] 4th habitual which made him go on the high end of my guidelines.
[4] People v. Uphaus, 278 Mich.App. 174, 182; 748 N.W.2d 899 (2008).

(R. 1, PID 6-10.)

         Respondent has moved for dismissal on the basis that Petitioner's challenge to the state court's judgment of sentence is moot. (R. 9.) Petitioner ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.