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.

Boggs v. Campbell

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

January 31, 2018

RICARDO T. BOGGS, Petitioner,
v.
SHERMAN CAMPBELL, Respondent.

          OPINION AND ORDER (1) GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT. 8], (2) DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND (3) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND PERMISSION TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

          John Corbett O'Meara United States District Judge.

         Ricardo T. Boggs, (“Petitioner”), a Michigan Department of Corrections prisoner, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition challenges Petitioner's Wayne Circuit Court conviction for first-degree home invasion, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.110a(2), second-degree criminal sexual conduct, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.520c(1)(c), and larceny in a building, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.360. Petitioner was sentenced as a fourth-time habitual felony offender to 15-to-25 years for the home-invasion conviction, 7-to-12 years for the criminal sexual conduct conviction, and 30 months-to-8 years for the larceny conviction.

         This matter is before the Court on Respondent's motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds that it was filed after expiration of the statute of limitations. [Dkt. 8]. Petitioner has filed an answer to the motion, asserting that he is entitled to equitable tolling on the grounds that his mental incompetence excuses his untimely petition. The Court will grant Respondent's motion for summary judgment and dismiss the case because Petitioner failed to comply with the one-year limitations period under 28 U.S.C. §2244(d), and Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to equitable tolling. The Court will also deny Petitioner a certificate of appealability and deny permission to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.

         I. Background

         The Michigan Court of Appeals summarized the facts regarding Petitioner's conviction as follows:

Defendant unlawfully entered the victim's first-floor Detroit apartment, through a bedroom window, and then sexually assaulted her and stole her cell phone. After he fled, the police were able to track defendant's location using the GPS technology on the victim's cell phone. After defendant refused to participate in a live lineup, the victim unequivocally identified him in a photographic array. On appeal, defendant raises issues related to his competency to stand trial and criminal responsibility.

People v. Boggs, No. 324418, 2016 WL 555857, *1 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 11, 2016).

         Following Petitioner's conviction Petitioner's appellate counsel filed an appeal of right. While the appeal was pending, Petitioner's appellate counsel filed a motion for new trial, asserting that Petitioner had been incompetent to stand trial. A hearing was held on the motion on May 22, 2015. Following argument, the trial court issued an opinion denying the motion, finding in part:

[T]he record is clear that Mr. Boggs underwent evaluation for both competency to stand trial and criminal responsibility, and the medically trained and qualified personnel from the Center for Forensic Psychiatry opined that he was both able to understand and assist in his defense and was not insane at the time of the offense.

Dkt. 9-10, at 4.

         Petitioner's appellate brief filed in the Michigan Court of Appeals raised two claims: (1) Petitioner was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel for failing to challenge Petitioner's competency to stand trial and his criminal responsibility, and (2) Petitioner was incompetent to stand trial. On February 11, 2016, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued an unpublished opinion affirming Petitioner's convictions. Boggs, 2016 WL 555857.

         With respect to Petitioner's competency claim, the Court found:

Defendant was evaluated by a forensic psychologist and determined to be both competent and criminally responsible. Defense counsel stipulated to the competency evaluation and produced no evidence to the contrary. In addition, as previously mentioned, defense counsel informed the court that, after discussing the case with defendant “in some detail, ” he believed that defendant understood “the nature of the charges” and was able to assist in his defense. ...

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.