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.

Winowiecki v. Gidley

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

March 14, 2018

CHRISTOPHER WINOWIECKI, Petitioner,
v.
LORI GIDLEY, Warden Respondent.

          Mona K. Majzoub Magistrate Judge.

          OPINION AND ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS [4]

          LAURIE J. MICHELSON U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Christopher Winowiecki filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (R. 1.) Winowiecki challenges his state-court convictions for multiple counts of criminal sexual conduct. Winowiecki raises four claims for relief, some of which, he admits, are not properly exhausted.

         In response, the Warden filed a motion to dismiss. Yet dismissal of Winowiecki's current petition would jeopardize the timeliness of a future petition. So the Court will deny the Warden's motion, grant Winowiecki's request for a stay, establish conditions under which Winowiecki must proceed, and administratively close the matter.

         I.

         A jury convicted Winowiecki on two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.520b(1)(b), one count of second-degree criminal sexual conduct, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.520c(1)(b), and one count of attempted first-degree criminal sexual conduct, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.92. (R. 1, PID 1-2.) He received a lengthy prison sentence. (R. 1, PID 1.)

         Winowiecki filed a direct appeal. He raised three issues: a Fifth and Sixth Amendment challenge to the prosecutor's opening and closing statements, a due process challenge to his sentence, and an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. (R. 1, PID 4-5.) The Michigan Court of Appeals rejected all three. See People v. Winowiecki, No. 317821, 2015 WL 340266 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2015).

         Winowiecki then filed an application for leave to appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court. He whittled his claims down to two: the challenge to the prosecutor's opening and closing alongside a new, speedy trial claim. (R. 4, PID 33.) The Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. People v. Winowiecki, 498 Mich. 973 (Mich. Sept. 9, 2015).

         Winowiecki then filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Winowiecki's petition returns to the initial three claims raised with the Michigan Court of Appeals, drops the speedy trial claim, and adds another ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. (R. 1, PID 17-18.)

         Responding to the petition, the Warden says Winowiecki failed to exhaust three of the four claims raised in the petition. (R. 1, PID 35.) Winowiecki concedes the point, and not wanting to abandon his unexhausted claims, asks the Court to stay further proceedings while he returns to state court to exhaust. (R. 5, PID 41-42.)

         II.

         A state prisoner must exhaust available remedies in state court before raising a claim in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(b), 2254(c). To satisfy the exhaustion requirement, all claims must be “fairly presented” to the state courts, meaning that the petitioner must have put before the state courts both the factual and legal bases for the claims. See Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29-32 (2004). Presenting the factual and legal bases requires Winowiecki to undergo “one full round” of the state's appellate review process. O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999). In practice, “one full round” means presenting each issue to both the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court. See Morse v. Trippett, 37 F. App'x 96, 103 (6th Cir. 2002).

         III.

         As mentioned, Winowiecki concedes that he failed to exhaust three of the four claims in his petition. When presented with a habeas corpus petition containing exhausted and unexhausted claims, this Court has numerous options. See Harris v. Lafler, 553 F.3d 1028, 1031 (6th Cir. 2009). One is to “stay the petition and hold it in abeyance while the petitioner returns to state court to raise his unexhausted claims . . . .” Id. (citing Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005)). This option applies where outright dismissal of the petition jeopardizes the timeliness of a future petition, there exists good cause for the petitioner's failure to exhaust state court remedies, the ...


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.