United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DENYING THE PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY OR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON
H. CLELAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Cummings, (“Petitioner”), incarcerated at the
Carson City Correctional Facility in Carson City, Michigan,
seeks the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254. In his pro se application,
Petitioner challenges his sentence for four counts of armed
robbery, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.529, and one count of
felony-firearm, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.227(b). For the
reasons that follow, the court will summarily deny the
was convicted following a jury trial in the Wayne County
Circuit Court. Petitioner was sentenced to concurrent terms
of two hundred and eighty-five months to sixty years on the
armed robbery convictions and received a consecutive two-year
sentence on the felony-firearm conviction.
review of Petitioner's conviction ended in the Michigan
courts on March 29, 1995, when the Michigan Supreme Court
denied Petitioner leave to appeal following the affirmance of
his conviction on his direct appeal by the Michigan Court of
Appeals. People v. Cummings, 693 N.W.2d 818 (Mich.
1995). Petitioner later filed a post-conviction motion for
relief from judgment, which was denied. People v.
Cummings, No. 01-012985-FC (Wayne Cty. Cir. Ct. Jan. 12,
2016). The Michigan appellate courts denied leave to appeal.
People v. Cummings, No. 332981 (Mich. Ct. App. Aug.
22, 2016); lv. den. 889 N.W.2d 252 (Mich. 2017).
now seeks a writ of habeas corpus on the following ground:
Contrary to the Michigan Supreme Court in applying a
procedural bar of MCR 6.508(D), the Michigan Supreme Court
employed an irrebutable (sic) presumption that
Petitioner['s] constitutional claim can be denied by
forfeiture that caused a fundamental miscarriage of justice,
thus denied (sic) the due process of law.
(Dkt. # 1, Pg. ID 3-4.)
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:
An 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 State court proceedings unless
the adjudication of the claim-
(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;
(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable
determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented
in the State court proceeding.
decision of a state court is “contrary to”
clearly established federal law if the state court arrives at
a conclusion opposite to that reached by the Supreme Court on
a question of law or if the state court decides a case
differently than the Supreme Court has on a set of materially
indistinguishable facts. Williams v. Taylor, 529
U.S. 362, 405-06 (2000). An “unreasonable
application” occurs when “a state court decision
unreasonably applies the law of [the Supreme Court] to the
facts of a prisoner's case.” Id. at 409. A
federal habeas court may not “issue the writ simply
because that court concludes in its independent judgment that
the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established
federal law erroneously or incorrectly.” Id.
at 410-11. “[A] state court's determination that a
claim lacks merit precludes federal habeas ...