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.

Holman v. Trierweiler

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

February 13, 2018

MICHAEL DAVID HOLMAN, Petitioner,
v.
TONY TRIERWEILER, Respondent.

          OPINION

          GORDON J. QUIST UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This is a habeas corpus action brought by a state prisoner under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Promptly 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 28 U.S.C. § 2243. If so, the petition must be summarily dismissed. Rule 4; see 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 dismissal under Rule 4 includes those petitions which raise legally frivolous claims, as well as those containing factual allegations that are palpably incredible or false. Carson v. Burke, 178 F.3d 434, 436-37 (6th Cir. 1999). After undertaking the review required by Rule 4, the Court will dismiss the petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust available state-court remedies.

         Discussion

         I. Factual allegations

         Petitioner Michael David Holman is incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections at the Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility (IBC) in Ionia, Michigan. On November 26, 2014, a Muskegon County Circuit Court judge, found Petitioner guilty of two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC I), Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.520b, and one count of second-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC II), Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.520c. On January 5, 2015, the court sentenced Petitioner as a habitual offender-fourth offense, Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.12, to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 33 to 50 years for each CSC I conviction and 9 to 30 years for the CSC II conviction.

         On January 22, 2018, Petitioner filed his habeas corpus petition. Under Sixth Circuit precedent, the application is deemed filed when handed to prison authorities for mailing to the federal court. Cook v. Stegall, 295 F.3d 517, 521 (6th Cir. 2002). Petitioner placed his petition in the prison mailing system on January 22, 2018. (Pet., ECF No. 1, Page ID.33.)

         The petition raises 11 grounds for relief, as follows:

I. Reversible error occurred when the trial court displayed its bias while questioning the prosecution's expert witness on child abuse.
II. Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce evidence that the complainants statement at the bonfire was not spontaneous, and failing to object to hearsay testimony about that statement on that basis, as well as because the prosecution failed to give any advance notice of its intent to introduce the statement.
III. The trial court erred in concluding that Shauna's bonfire statement was admissible as a prior consistent statement.
IV. Petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel by the admission of Shauna's bonfire statement, which statement the trial court agreed was inadmissible hearsay, where counsel's strategy in introducing the statement was unreasonable and the statement was unfairly prejudicial.
V. The prosecutor unfairly influenced the trial court at the Ginther hearing by distorting and misrepresenting the evidence.
VI. The prosecutor committed serious misconduct which deprived Petitioner of a fair trial, when he argued that Petitioner admitted sexual contact with the complainant, where Petitioner never made any such admission.
VII. Petitioner is entitled to a reversal on all convictions as there was insufficient evidence to support a verdict and reversible error occurred when the trial court improperly based his verdict, in part, on incorrect info that did not ...

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.