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.

Sain v. Campbell

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan

April 25, 2018

WILLIAM DONNELL SAIN, Petitioner,
v.
SHERMAN CAMPBELL, Respondent.

          OPINION AND SUMMARILY DENYING THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY OR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

          TERRENCE G. BERG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         William Donnell Sain, (“petitioner”), confined at the Gus Harrison Correctional Facility in Adrian, Michigan, seeks the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In his pro se application, petitioner challenges his conviction for armed robbery, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.529; felony-firearm, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.227b; and being a second felony habitual offender, Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.10. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition, on the ground that it was not timely filed in accordance with the statute of limitations contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(1). Petitioner filed a traverse or reply to the motion. For the reasons stated below, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is SUMMARILY DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.

         I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         Petitioner was convicted by a Muskegon County Circuit Court jury on June 21, 1990. Petitioner was sentenced on July 3, 1990 to thirty to sixty five years in prison on the armed robbery conviction and received a consecutive two year prison sentence on the felony-firearm conviction.

         Direct review of the petitioner's conviction ended in the Michigan courts on January 31, 1995, when the Michigan Supreme Court denied the application for leave to appeal following the affirmance of the petitioner's conviction on his appeal of right by the Michigan Court of Appeals. People v. Sain, 448 Mich. 863, 528 N.W.2d 739 (1995) (Table).

         On July 26, 2004, petitioner filed a “Motion For Disclosure of Agreement With or Concessions With Witnesses” with the Muskegon County Circuit Court. (See Dkt. # 7-2, Pg ID 835-839). The motion was denied by the trial court on October 12, 2004. People v. Sain, No. 90-31833-FC (Muskegon Cty. Cir. Ct., Oct. 12, 2004) (Dkt. # 7-2, Pg ID 862).

         On June 12, 2006, petitioner filed a “Motion to Obtain Records and Documents” with the trial court. Petitioner sought the production of the guilty plea transcripts from his accomplice Brian K. Brooks in this case and in an unrelated case, as well as the guilty plea transcript from prosecution witness Shenita L. Sain. Petitioner claimed he needed these transcripts to show that the prosecution had withheld evidence that these witnesses had been offered immunity in exchange for their testimony and that the witnesses had perjured themselves when they denied the existence of any such agreements at petitioner's trial. (Dkt. # 7-2, Pg ID 864-66). The judge granted this motion and ordered the production of the transcripts. People v. Sain, No. 90-31833-FC (Muskegon Cty.Cir.Ct., June 23, 2006). (Dkt. # 7-2, Pg ID 869). On September 8, 2006, the transcripts were sent to petitioner. See Letter from Muskegon County Circuit Court Clerk's Office. (Dkt. # 7-2, Pg ID 871).

         On September 20, 2007, petitioner filed a post-conviction motion for relief from judgment with the trial court. The motion was denied. People v. Sain, No. 90-31833-FC (Muskegon Cty.Cir.Ct., June 2, 2008). The Michigan appellate courts denied petitioner leave to appeal. People v. Sain, No. 292349 (Mich.Ct.App. July 21, 2009); lv. den. 485 Mich. 1126, 780 N.W. 2D 257 (2010).

         On February 13, 2015, petitioner filed a second post-conviction motion for relief from judgment with the trial court. The judge rejected the motion pursuant to Mich.Ct.R. 6.502(G), because petitioner's motion was not based on a retroactive change in the law or newly discovered evidence. People v. Sain, No. 90-31833-FC (Muskegon Cty.Cir.Ct., Feb. 24, 2015).

         On March 2, 2017, petitioner filed a motion for the court to take judicial notice of its own records or adjudicative facts, and to take judicial notice of facts and judicial notice of a retroactive change in law. The motion was rejected as an improperly filed successive motion for relief from judgment on May 5, 2017. People v. Sain, No. 90-31833-FC (Muskegon Cty.Cir.Ct., May 5, 2017)(See Muskgeon County Circuit Court Docket Entries, 92, 93, 94)(Dkt. # 7-3, Pg ID 1003).

         Petitioner's habeas application is signed and dated July 11, 2017.[1]

         II. Discussion

         In the statute of limitations context, “dismissal is appropriate only if a complaint clearly shows the claim is out of time.” Harris v. New York, 186 F.3d 243, 250 (2nd Cir. 1999); See also Cooey v. Strickland, 479 F.3d 412, 415-16 (6th Cir. 2007).

         The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), which was signed into law on April 24, 1996, amended the habeas corpus statute in several respects, one of which was to mandate a statute of limitations for habeas actions. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) imposes a one-year statute of limitations upon petitions for habeas relief:

(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. 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.