United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
RICARDO T. BOGGS, Petitioner,
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
Corbett O'Meara United States District Judge.
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
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.
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).
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.
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.
respect to Petitioner's competency claim, the Court
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. ...