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.

Crumley v. Jackson

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

September 21, 2017

MATTHEW ELIOTT CRUMLEY, Petitioner,
v.
SHANE JACKSON, Respondent,

          OPINION AND ORDER HOLDING IN ABEYANCE THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING THE CASE.

          HONORABLE ARTHUR J. TARNOW UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Matthew Elliot Crumley, (“Petitioner”), confined at the Carson City Correctional Facility in Carson City, Michigan, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction for armed robbery, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.529. Respondent filed an answer to the petition for writ of habeas corpus. As part of the answer, respondent argues that the petition is subject to dismissal because it contains at least one claim which has not been exhausted with the state courts. For the reasons that follow, in lieu of dismissing the petition without prejudice, this Court holds the petition in abeyance and stays the proceedings under the terms outlined in this opinion to permit petitioner to return to the state courts to exhaust his additional claims. If this fails, the petition will be dismissed without prejudice.

         I. Background

         Petitioner pleaded nolo contendere to the above charge in the Macomb County Circuit Court on February 24, 2015 and was sentenced on the same day to 10-20 years in prison.

         Petitioner moved to withdraw his plea, which the trial court denied on September 17, 2015.

         Petitioner, through counsel, filed an application for leave to appeal, in which he raised what make up the first two claims in his habeas petition. The Michigan Court of Appeals denied petitioner leave to appeal. People v. Crumley, No. 329590 (Mich.Ct.App. Dec. 7, 2015).

         Petitioner, through his appellate counsel, filed a motion for reconsideration with the Michigan Court of Appeals. In this motion, appellate counsel indicated that she had received a pro per supplemental brief from petitioner on December 7, 2015, the same day that the Michigan Court of Appeals denied petitioner leave to appeal. In this pro per supplemental brief, petitioner attempted to raise what now makes up his third claim. Appellate counsel noted that had petitioner filed an appeal of right, as opposed to the application for leave to appeal that he filed in his case, he would have had 84 days from the date that his original appeal was filed to file a supplemental pro per brief under Standard 4 of the Michigan Appellate Court rules. Appellate counsel urged the Michigan Court of Appeals to Crumley v. Jackson, 2:17-CV-11318 accept petitioner's supplemental brief for filing. The Michigan Court of Appeals denied petitioner 's motion for reconsideration. People v. Crumley, No. 329590 (Mich.Ct.App. Jan. 21, 2016).[1]

         Petitioner filed a pro per application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, in which he raised the three claims contained in the current habeas petition. The Michigan Supreme Court denied petitioner leave to appeal. People v. Crumley, 499 Mich. 971, 880 N.W.2d 541 (2016).

         Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, seeking relief on the following grounds:

I. The no contest plea was not knowing and voluntary and the procedure was defective.
II. Constitutional right to to be sentenced with accurate information was violated.
III. Ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

         II. Discussion

         Respondent argues that petitioner's habeas application is subject to dismissal because it contains at least one claim which has not been exhausted with ...


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.