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.

Ryan v. Heyns

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

March 13, 2017

NOLAN RYAN, Petitioner,
v.
DANIEL H. HEYNS, Respondent.

          OPINION

          GORDON J. QUIST UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This is a habeas corpus action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On May 30, 2012, Petitioner Nolan Ryan pleaded guilty to one count of manufacturing marijuana, Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.7401(2)(d)(iii), in Kalamazoo County Circuit Court. In exchange for Petitioner's plea, the prosecutor agreed to dismiss a second count, delivery of marijuana, recommend probation, remain silent regarding the imposition of jail time, and recommend treatment under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act. (Plea Tr., ECF No. 10.) Petitioner was twenty-years-old at the time of his plea. On July 23, 2012, Petitioner was sentenced to twelve months probation under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 762.11 et seq., and two days incarceration in the Kalamazoo County Jail.[1]

         Petitioner is a Canadian citizen. (Aff. of Nolan Ryan, ECF No. 1-10.) Six months after beginning his period of probation, Petitioner was taken into custody by the United States Department of Immigration and eventually was ordered removed from the United States to Canada because of the Kalamazoo County criminal proceedings. (Order, ECF No. 1-7.) Petitioner filed a motion for relief from judgment under Mich. Ct. R. 6.500 et seq., in the Kalamazoo County Circuit Court seeking to withdraw his plea because of ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner contended, and it is apparently undisputed, that his counsel never advised him of the immigration consequences of his plea. (Aff. of Attorney Peter Sudnick, ECF No. 1-5; Aff. of Nolan Ryan, ECF No. 1-10.) The trial court acknowledged that counsel's performance was deficient because counsel failed to advise Petitioner of the immigration consequences of the plea. (Motion Tr., ECF No. 12 at 10.) Nonetheless, the court concluded that Petitioner had suffered no prejudice because of the following exchange at the plea hearing:

THE COURT: If you are not a U.S. citizen and you plead guilty to this charge, the federal government can take action against your immigration status and deport you. Do you understand that?
DEFENDANT: Yes.

(Plea Tr., ECF No. 10 at 6; Mot. Tr., ECF No. 12 at 12.) Petitioner sought leave to appeal and immediate consideration from the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court. Both courts granted immediate consideration, but denied leave to appeal. (April 16, 2013 Mich. Ct. App. Ord., ECF No. 13; May 17, 2013 Mich. Ord., ECF No. 14.)

         In his petition, filed on June 6, 2013, while Petitioner was still on probation, Petitioner raises two issues:

I. THE TRIAL COURT'S RULING THAT A JUDICIAL WARNING DURING A PLEA COLLOQUY NEGATES THE DEFENSE COUNSEL'S AFFIRMATIVE DUTY ESTABLISHED BY PADILLA V. KENTUCKY, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.CT. 1473 (2010) IS CONTRARY TO, OR AN UNREASONABLE APPLICATION OF CLEARLY ESTABLISHED FEDERAL LAW.
II. PETITIONER IS IN CUSTODY IN VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION WHERE HIS DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO ADVISE PETITIONER THAT HIS PLEA WOULD RESULT IN HIS REMOVAL FROM THE UNITED STATES AND AS A RESULT PETITIONER WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AND HIS PLEA WAS INVOLUNTARY IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

(Mem. in Support of Pet., ECF No. 1, Page ID.8.) Petitioner presented both issues in the briefs he filed in the Michigan courts.[2]

         On January 6, 2014, Respondent filed an answer to the petition. (ECF No. 7.) On January 15, 2014, Respondent filed the state-court record, pursuant to Rule 5, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. (ECF Nos. 8-17.)

         Upon review and applying the AEDPA standards, the Court finds that all habeas grounds are meritless. Accordingly, the Court will deny the petition.

         Standard of Review

         This action is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (AEDPA). See Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782, 792 (2001). The AEDPA “prevents federal habeas ‘retrials'” and ensures that state court convictions are given effect to the extent possible under the law. Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 693-94 (2002). The AEDPA has “drastically changed” the nature of habeas review. Bailey v. Mitchell, 271 F.3d 652, 655 (6th Cir. 2001). An application for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person who is incarcerated pursuant to a state conviction cannot be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court unless the adjudication: “(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based upon an unreasonable determination of the facts ...


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.