United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
v. JOHN EDWARDS-FAVELA VILLANUEVA, Petitioner SHANE JACKSON, Respondent.
T. Neff United States District Judge
a habeas corpus action brought by a state prisoner under 28
U.S.C. § 2254. Promptly after the filing of a petition
for habeas corpus, the Court must undertake a preliminary
review of the petition to determine whether “it plainly
appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits
annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief
in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing §
2254 Cases; see 28 U.S.C. § 2243. If so, the
petition must be summarily dismissed. Rule 4; see Allen
v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir. 1970) (district
court has the duty to “screen out” petitions that
lack merit on their face). A dismissal under Rule 4 includes
those petitions which raise legally frivolous claims, as well
as those containing factual allegations that are palpably
incredible or false. Carson v. Burke, 178 F.3d 434,
436-37 (6th Cir. 1999). After undertaking the review required
by Rule 4, the Court will deny Petitioner's motion for a
stay and dismiss the petition without prejudice for failure
to exhaust available state-court remedies.
is incarcerated in the Carson City Correctional Facility.
Petitioner pleaded guilty in the Eaton County Circuit Court
to second-degree home invasion, Mich. Comp. Laws §
750.110(a)(3), and was originally sentenced on November 7,
2012, to a jail term of 365 days to be followed by a two-year
term of probation. Petitioner's probation was revoked
after the trial court found that he had violated the terms of
his probation. On September 12, 2014, the trial court
resentenced Petitioner as an habitual offender, Mich. Comp.
Laws § 769.12, to imprisonment of 72 to 360 months.
filed a delayed application for leave to appeal in the
Michigan Court of Appeals raising the following six claims of
I. The trial court imposed a probation violation sentence
without obtaining an updated presentence report.
II. The trial court refused to allow corrections to
Petitioner's presentence report.
III. The trial court refused to provide Petitioner with a
document that was removed from the circuit court record
concerning the discharge of Petitioner's probation.
IV. The trial court lacked sufficient evidence to establish a
V. The trial court lacked jurisdiction to conduct a probation
violation hearing and impose a probation violation sentence
because he was already discharged from probation.
VI. Ineffective assistance of counsel.
(Pet. ECF No. 1, PageID.2.) The court of appeals denied
Petitioner's application for leave to appeal on April 29,
2015, for lack of merit in the grounds presented. Petitioner
raised the same six claims in his application for leave to
appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court, as well as a new claim
that he had not received proper credit for time served. On
October 28, 2015, the Michigan Supreme Court denied
Petitioner's application because it was not persuaded
that the issues warranted review by the court. The supreme
court subsequently denied Petitioner's motion for
reconsideration on March 8, 2016.
March 17, 2015, while Petitioner's case was pending
before the Michigan Court of Appeals, Petitioner filed in the
Eaton County Circuit Court motions to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction and for correction of an invalid sentence.
However, those motions were not decided by the circuit court
because it lacked jurisdiction while Petitioner's case
was pending on appeal. Petitioner ...