United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER HOLDING IN ABEYANCE THE PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING THE
HONORABLE ARTHUR J. TARNOW UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
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.
moved to withdraw his plea, which the trial court denied on
September 17, 2015.
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).
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).
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).
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.
argues that petitioner's habeas application is subject to
dismissal because it contains at least one claim which has
not been exhausted with ...