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 APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
HONORABLE SEAN F. COX UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Ray Stapleton, (petitioner), confined at the Huron Valley
Women's Correctional Facility in Ypsilanti, Michigan,
filed a pro se application for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner
challenges her sentence for first-degree child abuse, Mich.
Comp Laws § 750.136(b)(2). For the reasons that follow,
the petition for writ of habeas corpus is SUMMARILY DENIED.
was originally charged with attempted murder, but pleaded
guilty to the lesser offense of first-degree child abuse.
was sentenced to ten to 22 years in prison.
conviction and sentence was affirmed. People v.
Stapleton, No. 326600 (Mich. Ct. App. May 24, 2016);
lv. den. 499 Mich. 926 (2016).
seeks a writ of habeas corpus on the following grounds:
I. Scoring error in OV [Offense Variable] 1: Aggravated use
of a weapon. (20 points). The trial court misconstrued the
statute to include a grill as a harmful chemical device. OV 1
should have been zero [points].
II. Error in scoring OV 2: using a lethal weapon. A grill is
not a harmful biological device or harmful radioactive
device. OV 2 should have been scored a zero.
III. Error in scoring: OV 4 for 10 points for serious
psychological injury. It should be scored at zero.
IV. Error in scoring in OV 9: 10 points, for counting self as
a victim. How can a defendant be a victim? Court scored 2-9
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 also 28 U.S.C. § 2243. If, after
preliminary consideration, the Court determines that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief, the Court must
summarily dismiss the petition. Id., see also
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 federal district
court is authorized to summarily dismiss a habeas corpus
petition if it plainly appears from the face of the petition
and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled
to federal habeas relief. See McFarland v. Scott,
512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994); Carson v. Burke, 178 F.3d
434, 436 (6th Cir.1999); Rules Governing § 2254 Cases,
Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. No response to a habeas
petition is necessary when the petition is frivolous,
obviously lacks merit, or where the necessary facts can be
determined from the petition itself without consideration of
a response from the State. See Allen, 424 F.2d at
141; Robinson v. Jackson, 366 F.Supp.2d 524, 525
(E.D. Mich. 2005).
undertaking the review required by Rule 4, this Court
concludes that petitioner's sentencing claims do not
entitle her to habeas relief, such that the petition must be
summarily denied. See ...