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.

Hall v. Washington

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

April 19, 2018

Paul Anthony Hall, Petitioner,
v.
Heidi Washington et al., Respondents.

          United States Magistrate Judge David R. Grand

          OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS [11 AND GRANTING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

          GERSHWIN A. DRAIN United States District Judge

         I. Introduction

          On May 21, 2016, state parolee Paul Anthony Hall ("Petitioner") applied for the writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2254. Dkt. No. 1. Petitioner committed criminal sexual conduct as a teenager. Years later, he was convicted of second-degree fleeing and eluding a police officer. Pursuant to Michigan Compiled Laws § 28.723(1)(e), Hall's sentence for the latter offense required that he register as a sex offender, given his juvenile conviction for criminal sexual conduct. In requesting habeas relief, Hall argues his forced registration as a sex offender is cruel and unusual punishment. See Dkt. No. 1, p. 2 (Pg. ID 2).

         The State maintains, and the Court agrees, that the state courts' rejection of Petitioner's claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, Supreme Court precedent. Accordingly, the Court will DENY the habeas petition [1].

         II. Background

         In 1987, when Hall was fifteen years old, he committed third-degree criminal sexual conduct. Decades later, in 2012, while on parole from three felony drug convictions, Petitioner fled from two Michigan state troopers during a traffic stop. On July 22, 2013, Petitioner pleaded guilty in Oakland County Circuit Court to second-degree fleeing and eluding a police officer. See Mich. Comp. Laws § 75O.479a(4). There was no plea agreement, but the trial court agreed to sentence Hall within the sentencing guidelines, as calculated at the time of his sentencing.[1] 7/22/13 PleaTr., pp. 7, 13 (Dkt. No. 5-4, Pg. ID 114, 120).

         Before sentencing, Petitioner moved to withdraw his guilty plea. Hall contended that at the time of his plea neither the prosecutor, nor defense counsel knew of his prior adjudication for criminal sexual conduct or that he would have to register as a sex offender. The trial court denied Hall's motion after concluding he had not established a basis for setting aside the plea. 10/2/13 Mot. Hr'g, pp. 3-4 (Dkt. No. 5-5, Pg. ID 128-29).

         On October 8, 2013, the trial court sentenced Hall as a habitual offender to imprisonment for nineteen months to ten years, and ordered him to comply with sex-offender registration requirements. 10/8/13 Sentencing Tr., pp. 6-7 (Dkt. No. 5-6, Pg. ID 137-38); 10/8/13 Judgment of Sentence, p. 1 (Dkt. No. 5-8, Pg. ID 189).

         Petitioner subsequently moved to correct the sentence. He asked the trial court to strike from his judgment of sentence and pre-sentence report any reference to the sex-offender registry. He claimed the registration requirement constituted cruel and unusual punishment because it was mandatory and did not consider specific characteristics. Hall noted he was a juvenile when he committed the criminal sexual conduct offense, and maintained that he had been rehabilitated. Petitioner also asked the trial court to correct his pre-sentence report to show that he had only one juvenile delinquency adjudication for criminal sexual conduct. 6/4/14 Mot. Hr'g, pp. 3-11 (Dkt. No. 5-7, Pg. ID 143-51).

         The trial court granted in part and denied in part Petitioner's motion. The court agreed to correct the pre-sentence report to show that Hall had only one juvenile disposition for criminal sexual conduct. But the court declined to remove the sex-offender registration requirement from the pre-sentence report and judgment of sentence. The court reasoned the sex-offender registration requirement was not cruel and unusual punishment, particularly in light of Hall's five or six convictions after the juvenile adjudication Id. at pp. 13-16, Pg. ID 153-56; People v. Hall, No. 13-244395-FH (Oakland Cty. Cir. Ct. June 4, 2014).

         On appeal, Hall argued that forcing him to register as a sex offender after a conviction for second-degree fleeing and eluding a police officer was cruel and unusual punishment under the state and federal constitutions. The Michigan Court of Appeals denied him leave to appeal, and later denied his motion for reconsideration. People v. Hall, No. 322400 (Mich. Ct. App. Aug. 26, 2014). Hall presented the same claim to the Michigan Supreme Court, which also denied leave to appeal. See People v. Hall, 497 Mich. 983, 861 N.W.2d 39 (2015).

         On May 21, 2016, Petitioner filed his habeas corpus petition through counsel. He argues here-as in the state courts-that requiring him to register as a sex offender constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the state and federal constitutions. He asks the Court to strike the reference to the sex-offender registry from his judgment of sentence and pre-sentence report, and to order the State to remove his name from the sex-offender registry.

         III. Standard of Review

          Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), the Court can grant a state prisoner's application for the writ of habeas corpus only if the state ...


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.